Stack Exchange
log in

rus9384

 Discussion on question by Mark: Can m…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
rus9384
Mar 4, 2024 14:19
@Mark Though, these only are arguments for existence of God, not for Christianity being truthful (e.g. it could be God exists, but the Church has gone astray and the texts were spoiled).
rus9384
Mar 4, 2024 14:19
@Mark If you can, you just need to provide evidence for that. But yes, I can weaken my claim to "No one has yet provided a convincing argument for the specific religion."
rus9384
Mar 4, 2024 14:19
@Mark Yes, I am aware of the theodicy, however the devil can "test your faith" in similar ways. It does not need to be a Cartesian evil demon. In fact, you can't even tell which of the religions and denominations is more truthful (if there is any truthful one), because quite literally, if there are mutually contradictory monotheistic religions (based on some lore), at least one of them has to be false, i.e. the god of that religion must be fake. But you can't tell which one.
rus9384
Mar 4, 2024 14:19
@Mark The Binding of Isaac precedes the commandments, but you'd think God's morality is permanent, not subject to change over time. Discernment of spirits is not useful when the devil says what you'd expect God to say. E.g. he asks you for a sacrifice, to sell your possessions, etc. All of those can lead to favoring the devil, even if it's not obvious to a human.
rus9384
Mar 4, 2024 14:19
God has revealed (part of) his views on morality through Sacred Scripture Not really, because he was asking prophets to do something that contradicted the commandments: i.e. his present word takes precedence over the commandments. And some of these tasks would be seen questionable by many. As for epistemology, it does not seem that Reformed Epistemology tells you how to separate God from the devil (who tries to convince you he is God).
rus9384
Mar 4, 2024 14:19
it would go against God's motives But that's impossible to know because "God works in mysterious ways". If you don't accept that God's motives are unknowable, then you have to defend against other criticisms. Also, suppose someone who claims to be God (e.g. the voice in the head) commands you to do it. How would you know it's not good and therefore does not come from God?
 

 Discussion on question by Speakpigeon…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
rus9384
Feb 20, 2024 18:21
So, basically, this is asking about logics without the law of the excluded middle.
 

 Discussion on question by Apostolos: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
rus9384
Feb 9, 2024 09:07
"What has happened to the scientific method: observation -> hypothesis -> testing (experimentation) -> proof?" This is the scientific method. There is an evidence that manipulating the brain affects thinking. There is no evidence that manipulating something else affects thinking.
 

 Discussion on question by Baby_philos…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
@PerttiRuismäki It's not, and please, you come off arrogant,
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
@PerttiRuismäki This is a lot of claims that have no justification yet. Either way, think the comments are not a place for this debate.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
@PerttiRuismäki And how is there a concept of knowledge in probabilism? If anything, determinism vs. probabilism seems tangential to the concept of knowledge (and as such, both might or might not have a concept of knowledge).
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
@PerttiRuismäki Okay, a simple thought experiment. I ask you to guess in which of my hands a coin is. I know it in advance, therefore it is deterministic. You don't know it, therefore determinism is not sufficient for knowledge.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
@PerttiRuismäki This assumes they are probabilistic. Again, there is no evidence a coin toss is probabilistic rather than deterministic but we just don't know how to predict it.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
@PerttiRuismäki "You cannot predict human actions at all, there is no algorithm." Physicalists would disagree. They would just state it's too complex to be practically predictable.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
@PerttiRuismäki But there would be someone tossing it, a human or some machine. That means, they are involved in the process and if you know their algorithm and current state and you have infinite computational resources, you can predict how they will toss it.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
@PerttiRuismäki I should clarify that I meant physical coin tosses, not abstract mathematical ones.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
I was just using "mass * acceleration" as an example. You have a mass, there is a force of gravity, so if you fall out of window, there will be an acceleration towards the source of the gravitational force. So, there is an empirical reason to believe "Force = mass * acceleration". And there is also a reason to believe it is deterministic: there is a guarantee that you will fall onto the surface if you are not there already. So, I am not sure what fallacy are you talking about?
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
"Presumably no reason" - So there is no reason for anything, right? Can just expect that if you fall out of window, might fly like a bird? But the observation disagrees with that.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
Or maybe it comes from disbelief in true randomness. When you toss a coin, there is no true randomness involved (to a significant degree, at least). A powerful machine that would scan your brain activity, predict the environmental factors such as wind, etc. would be able to predict the result of the coin toss. So, the intuition is the same for smaller scale systems. "And its next state can be B, C, or D with a probability of 1/3." - the premise violates determinism, does not it?
 

 Discussion on question by pie: Are mo…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
rus9384
Jan 20, 2024 10:58
"mathematics is the closest thing to absolute truth" And yet, being entirely a construct of the human mind, it turns out to be exactly the opposite. "if they agreed on the axioms" That's exactly the part why it's not absolute.
 

 Discussion on question by beginner: G…

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...
rus9384
Dec 1, 2023 16:32
I suppose the hidden assumption is that both you and the opponent use the optimal strategies for resampling. Also, do you see the opponent number before the end of the game?
 

 Discussion on question by Michael Bar…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
rus9384
Mar 29, 2019 08:47
The answer on CS.SE already is enough. So, this question should be closed.
rus9384
Mar 29, 2019 08:47
Nothing can't exist. Therefore, not me can't exist Therefore the whole existence is me. And you too. Do you agree with it?
rus9384
Mar 29, 2019 08:47
Infinite sets: have you ever observed one in the reality? That's why math is not natural science. Yet, I see severe problems with understanding complexity classes here. Exponential by definition is not polynomial.
rus9384
Mar 29, 2019 08:47
Theory of everything, what? P vs. NP is mathematical problem not necessarily related to reality. Theory of everything is rrlated to reality and is physical problem. "This means that Non-polynomial time problems can’t exist." - say that to chess, Go, halting problem, etc.
 

 Discussion on answer by GendoIkari: I…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
rus9384
Feb 16, 2019 20:06
And your reasoning is circular and reductive. "God is not evil, because he punishes people for being infinitely evil, and evil is anything that is not from God, because God only can do good." Now, I reduce it to "God is not evil... because God only can do good."
rus9384
Feb 16, 2019 20:06
Putting a human in the hell for eternity does not have rehabilitational purpose. In any other case it is possible for an omnipotent God to simply destroy the soul/human. Since this, the first choice is universally more evil than the second and God is evil.
 

 Discussion on question by Mark Sloan:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
rus9384
Feb 13, 2019 08:47
A mind-independent morality is the one that is applicable to mindless entities. I see none of such, people don't even think that morality is applicable to primitive animals. Your example is in the form of command, why is it not binding? How is it objective? If it was "To increase your own benefits, increase the benefits of cooperation without exploiting others" it could be objective if true. And it's non-binding.
 

 Discussion on question by Galastel: D…

Imported from a comment discussion on writing.stackexchange.co...
rus9384
Feb 8, 2019 18:35
Well, however, the question of dying children can be actual even if I'm not wrong in this particular case. We can take prehistoric times and there it will be really common. Though, I guess even having an adult friend eaten by a beast was relatively common right there.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2019 18:35
@Mark Well, wikipedia states it takes into account any age and it has 24.5 (18th century) years in some countries. Well, if it takes into account only reproductive age. That's weird.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2019 18:35
@Ryan But isn't that covered by lifespan expectancy?
rus9384
Feb 8, 2019 18:35
We have average amount of children per parent and life expectancy? What is missing? In fact pulling out is still not really very bad. It allows to reduce the amount of children from 10 to 2 easily.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2019 18:35
5 or 10 are not the babies already, of course. During those times lifetime expectancy was around 25-30 years. It takes into account lifetime of newborns. That means that on average there were much less births than you say. But who knows, maybe historicians are wrong? Yet, I'm pretty sure rich people were not bothered to use/practice contraception (I am not talking about condoms, of course), but poor people were.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2019 18:35
According to studies the world population was around 650 million by the end of 17th century. By the end of 18th century it is around 1 billion. That means around 40% increase for about 4 generations. And around 9% increase per population. Which means that on average only 2.18 children per couple reached the middle of reproductive age.
rus9384
Feb 8, 2019 18:35
I am not sure women actually gave 10 births on average. The probability of conception during a single period hardly exceeds 20% and often is less. Also, women can't conceive during pregnancy and for some time after that. And there are some complications during pregnancies.
 

 Discussion on question by Shunya: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 22:01
But this is circular: you try to prove premises of your theory by giving me conclusions of your theory with no factual evidence.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 22:01
@tnknepp Feels like a fallacy: "either a poodle can born a wolf, or it's ever impossible to breed a wolf from a poodle in many generations". Or do you think that once a wolf gave birth to a poodle? I see that you think yes, that is, your idea that changes do not occur slowly, but like jumps. You don't see a wolf giving birth to something very unsimilar from wolf except very rare cases.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 21:22
@tnknepp Biologists accept the idea that successors get some features of ancestors. Do you accept it? Maybe yes. But then it seems you don't accept the idea of mutations. Or do you?
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 21:21
@tnknepp There is no such thing as genetic information to be lost. It is not like an egg that can never become unbroken once broken. You can look for bigger poodles and breed them so once you get wolf-sized poodles. Then you need to try get wolf-like fur. Again, just breed less curly wolf-sized poodles (that you already have) and get non-curly dogs. Then try for grey fur color. Facial features. But I don't understand why you would say it's impossible.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 20:27
I am simply interested what do you propose as an alternative to heredity.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 20:26
@tnknepp That's very likely correct. But as such it makes more sense to say the Earth is old. And as a biologist, you would need to assume something rather than nothing, and something observable rather than inobservable. There are hereditary diseases. Well, at least this assumption has more methodological power than any others than become popular in the society.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 20:23
@tnknepp Well... you can. Just aim for wolf's appearance traits. That is, all poodles have been selected from dogs very different from poodles. Most of breeds came from 20th century.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 19:38
@tnknepp Regarding social darwinism. Well, it seems that was his fault to use this term. However, the idea proposed is not really social darwinism.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 19:37
@tnknepp In strict sense creationism demands that the first human, and anything created before that (the creation took 6 days, if you read it literally, which results in logical errors) was created 10,000-6,000 years ago.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 19:35
@tnknepp It has power, as people already created many cat and dog breeds using this theory.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 19:34
@tnknepp Well, that's because there are too few fossils remaining. Most of them are destroyed and the more time passed, the less fossils there are. So, there are not much fossils of dinosaurs or other very old species. But quite more of various homo species, mammoths and so on.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 18:25
I see many reasoning errors. At first, it has nothing to do with social darwinism which is normative while darwinian theory is descriptive. Then, you say X caused Y, which is bad, therefore X is bad. But I see no proposition saying that X necessary causes Y.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 18:22
@tnknepp Darwinian evolution with some corrections seems to have good methodological power. Therefore I see no reason to assume it's wrong. The guy does not seem to prove darwinian evolution, but only explains, using it, how it affects morality. The thing is not social darwinism. It is natural selection and few biologists doubt it. You can be a good physicist and believe in creationism, but you can't study a history of the universe then.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 18:09
@Mauro It is different because there are human-created conditions that made it different. And humans made it different because they are different. Does not make sense.
rus9384
Feb 5, 2019 18:09
@SmootQ Sociopaths usually are not sociophobes. And that's still not a definition of a psychopath or a sociopath. Most people don't understand what is happening but they need not to know in order to act.