Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[pood]

In any case, all theories are undetermined by data.

That shoud be underdetermined by data …

 

[Shadowy Man]

In any case, all theories are undetermined by data.

That shoud be underdetermined by data …

Did I say that? Or is the attribution incorrect?

 

[Jarhyn]

You're pretty much taking for granted that any hypothetical god-candidate would have to interact with humans using some force/particle/field that's pretty much like the ones we already know about.

Yes.

Because our theoretical physics says that the ones we know about cannot interact with any unknown ones.

Of course, our theoretical physics could be totally wrong. That's my option 4; Your objection here seems to be that my other three options don't include option 4, which is an odd objection to make.

The rest of your post amounts to the claim that idiots might suggest that we are completely wrong, but everything we base on our (wrong) physics just works anyway, by pure luck.

Yes, they probably will. Idiots argue all kinds of crazy shit. Why should anyone listen to them?

Regardless of unknown details of such quantum scale phenomena as wave-function collapse, at the macroscopic scale of individual human beings, or of individual human brains, or even of individual human neurons, the aggregate physics is fully and completely understood, and the possibility of our thoughts being influenced by, or influencing, an unknown "soul", without producing easily detectable traces of that interaction, are zero.

There are plenty of things we don't know. Whether or not souls are a possibility turns out not to be one of those unknowns.

If, in order to save our souls, we need to hypothesise that reality itself doesn't exist (eg we live in a simulation that can be reset by its operator), then we literally know nothing about reality, and can't even have this (or any) conversation, if for no other reason than that the conversation itself is nonexistent.

We can destroy any unpleasant idea (such as the non-existence of souls), by taking the anti-solipsistic approach: I cannot know that I think, therefore maybe I'm not.

Sadly, doing so also destroys the entire rest of the universe, ourselves included, which seems like an excessive price to pay.

Bilby, let's imagine for a moment you are in a video game. The video game has a set of rules and nothing you can see can violate them. They are absolute laws which have never been broken and every interaction you have ever seen obeys those rules.

Now, let's for a moment say that the rules you see are that bits only flip states according to a fixed set of interactions confined to a few sets of "class behaviors" and so on.

What is being proposed here is that a creator of said video game can stop the game, use a side channel memory hacker to alter the class state in a volatile way not beholden to the rules of the simulation, and even access simulations, systems, where that information has been expressed.

IF there is a God, THEN this is a simulation, and the laws of physics such as we understand them would be quite a bit more mutable than we give credit, because they would exist in something capable of side-channel modification, even if we can't directly access the side channel ourselves.

I don't expect that it is, and I don't expect that it isn't, but dead to rights, our understanding of our laws of physics are so much "DFHack*" from not mattering.

One of the more important aspects to me is that most of the people I know who would do something like creating a universe simulation are not going to let out a disappointed zealot who feels betrayed for having an imperfect "God".

*DFHack is a game memory modification suite hooked into the rendering engine of Dwarf Fortress. By acting as a pass-through layer it gains access to the DF memory space to claim mutexes, inject queues, and ultimately hook the process so that the system can be put on pause and the system state can be modified outside normal the function of the simulation.

All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether humans have souls that survive their death.

But definitely falls into anti-solipsism.

Yes, it's possible that we're in a simulation. No, that's not a useful idea.

I think I think, therefore I think I am. If I am wrong, then I am not, and literally anything goes, and nobody including the people who are hypothesising that we are in a simulation knows shit about shit.

If your hypothesis is correct, then all hypotheses are useless, including yours.

Except it's not irrelevant.

So, I'm a physicalist right? I think that what we are is a function of a relationship between things in a way that yields linear switches with an activation threshold.

Your thinking and being is reliant on some kind of switching behavior existing, but in our universe switches are a whole class of structure. Even if you were in a simulation you would still be, and still be made of, something... even if that's a diffuse field of charges on memory chips, and relationships between semiconductors... or even weirder kinds of switches.

That's not actually a hypothesis that breaks down even if our whole physics is simulated, and I don't think it makes hypotheses useless. It just makes them relative to the systemic expression you have in mind. It prepares the mind to think of switches and even existence in a general way, and that's generally useful, especially for software engineers.

Let's take for example this idea of a "dwarf". It's an example I make do a lot of work for me so you should be familiar by now. It's got a lot fewer mutable parameters than you do. Let's suppose that I put all the pertinent information that defines this dwarf into a different simulation, with all their memories of locations, with all their parameters intact, and all of their memories such as they are intact, and give them a framework that leveraged it all in the same way but in a different environment. I would have "isolated it's soul" and "put it in a different body". This means real souls violate a bunch of the claimed religious tropes. In theory the soul could be copied, and hooks could be put in it so that it would be... adulterated.

This in fact would mean that the soul of a person, or a machine, is more a description of how to assemble a state machine to reproduce its behavior and give it environmental access, and in the future we are about to step into, all the ancient rules of lore apply, and no longer as metaphors!

If I as a human wanted to pluck your soul, I would need to do some rather grisly things involving a microscope and, liquid nitrogen, a very sharp blade, an MRI machine, several AI, and your brain, and I would get the opportunity to do a lot of cheeky shit to who you are/were/would become.

If I were a god, it would be a lot easier and a lot harder. I would suspect the work for naming systems from particle configurations is harder but being able to actually access the state and position and understand what moment of action exists in the system instantaneously is easier.

This means, as I'm fond of saying, soul is to to body, as blueprint in a world with a blueprint application engine is to a finished instantiated object.

So the soul is real in theory, it's seat is the brain in humans. We merely lack the means to re-instantiate the image well, or at all really... or even capture it, beyond "the live image", the brain itself.

Again, it's not a concept that is impossible to fathom, and it's a concept that holds regardless of whether you are in this universe or a universe being simulated within ours, or outside of our universe simulating this universe yourself. There will always be stuff achieving describable processes.

In some ways, thinking as if we are a simulation is a useful idea, because it allows us to consider general cases, plans of action, scalable frameworks of understanding, and decision trees in case we ever find ourselves in those kinds of situations. Moreover, it allows us to apply that same understand when we create simulations ourselves, and make better decisions regarding those simulations, and to understand game theoretic ethics in general terms of entities in any space rather than human beings on earth.

De-anthropocization has been a major push in my life and it doesn't happen until you force yourself to think outside the context of humanity or even our universe as a basis for understanding.

 

[pood]

In any case, all theories are undetermined by data.

That shoud be underdetermined by data …

Did I say that? Or is the attribution incorrect?

Sorry, no, I screwed up the quote tags. I said it. I meant to write underdetermined but it came out undetermined, which is a different thing. Possibly this occurred because of spell check shenanigans? Or because my eyes are starting to go to shit.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I just disagree that Newtonian mechanics is “grossly contrary” to reality. It is a highly successful theory that has been in use successfully for centuries.

Just because there are factors that might need to be included to make even more accurate predictions doesn’t mean it is wrong.

And just because Einstein’s GR is a more complete theory of gravitation doesn’t make Newton’s theory of gravitation “wrong” or “grossly contrary” to reality either.

Reality is something we only understand through our ability to model it and check predictions of theories against observations. Wrongness is related to how inaccurate a theory is.

Flat earth is a good example of a model that is “grossly contrary” to reality because it makes predictions that are demonstrably false.

But what about Ptolemey’s geocentric model? Surely it was “grossly contrary” to reality, and yet it worked just fine and dandy for navigation and other calculational purposes for over a thousand years.

Keep in mind that Ptolemy’s geocentric model isn’t a simplified version of a heliocentric model the way that Newton’s Laws are of Einstein’s. The so-called “wrongness” is categorically different. Like Bomb’s mention of flat earth, which also isn’t a simplified version of the globe earth model. It is wrong at a foundational level. That’s not what is happening with Newton and Einstein.

The phrase “grossly contrary” in this context is certainly quantitatively wrong and qualitatively meaningless.

It is true that history is replete with scientists arrogantly stating their theories as fact, theories that later get replaced with more accurate, simpler, more aesthetic theories. So we shouldn’t hold too strongly to the idea that what we think we know is a “true” representation of “reality”.

The best theories are those that work and last. That these might get supplanted by others that expand upon them rather than defy them doesn’t mean they were “wrong”.

This has been a good discussion and afforded me the opportunity to refine my thinking on this subject, which is one of great interest to me.

 

[pood]

I just disagree that Newtonian mechanics is “grossly contrary” to reality. It is a highly successful theory that has been in use successfully for centuries.

Just because there are factors that might need to be included to make even more accurate predictions doesn’t mean it is wrong.

And just because Einstein’s GR is a more complete theory of gravitation doesn’t make Newton’s theory of gravitation “wrong” or “grossly contrary” to reality either.

Reality is something we only understand through our ability to model it and check predictions of theories against observations. Wrongness is related to how inaccurate a theory is.

Flat earth is a good example of a model that is “grossly contrary” to reality because it makes predictions that are demonstrably false.

But what about Ptolemey’s geocentric model? Surely it was “grossly contrary” to reality, and yet it worked just fine and dandy for navigation and other calculational purposes for over a thousand years.

Keep in mind that Ptolemy’s geocentric model isn’t a simplified version of a heliocentric model the way that Newton’s Laws are of Einstein’s. The so-called “wrongness” is categorically different. Like Bomb’s mention of flat earth, which also isn’t a simplified version of the globe earth model. It is wrong at a foundational level. That’s not what is happening with Newton and Einstein.

The phrase “grossly contrary” in this context is certainly quantitatively wrong and qualitatively meaningless.

It is true that history is replete with scientists arrogantly stating their theories as fact, theories that later get replaced with more accurate, simpler, more aesthetic theories. So we shouldn’t hold too strongly to the idea that what we think we know is a “true” representation of “reality”.

The best theories are those that work and last. That these might get supplanted by others that expand upon them rather than defy them doesn’t mean they were “wrong”.

This has been a good discussion and afforded me the opportunity to refine my thinking on this subject, which is one of great interest to me.

Yes, I agree entirely. My raising the geocentric model of Ptolemy was in response to you correctly pointing out that the flat earth model was not only “grossly contrary” to reality, but easily disprovable because it made false predictions. It has been known since antiquity that the world was round and the ancient Greeks even more or less accurately measured its diameter (It’s a mystery to me why Columbus didn’t know this and thought the world was smaller than it really was).

The upshot is that we can indeed have false theories that are grossly contrary to reality yet are perfectly instrumentally useful. Ptoelemy’s model made accurate predictions that were employed for over a thousand years. In fact the church really wasn’t opposed to Galileo teaching heliocentrism as a calculational device; they just wished he wouldn’t teach it as being true.

The other upshot is, what does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

 

[Shadowy Man]

The other upshot is, what does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

Not much. My ears just perked up when I heard Newtonian mechanics described as “grossly contrary to reality.”

I’ll get off my soapbox now.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I just disagree that Newtonian mechanics is “grossly contrary” to reality. It is a highly successful theory that has been in use successfully for centuries.

Just because there are factors that might need to be included to make even more accurate predictions doesn’t mean it is wrong.

And just because Einstein’s GR is a more complete theory of gravitation doesn’t make Newton’s theory of gravitation “wrong” or “grossly contrary” to reality either.

Reality is something we only understand through our ability to model it and check predictions of theories against observations. Wrongness is related to how inaccurate a theory is.

Flat earth is a good example of a model that is “grossly contrary” to reality because it makes predictions that are demonstrably false.

But what about Ptolemey’s geocentric model? Surely it was “grossly contrary” to reality, and yet it worked just fine and dandy for navigation and other calculational purposes for over a thousand years.

Keep in mind that Ptolemy’s geocentric model isn’t a simplified version of a heliocentric model the way that Newton’s Laws are of Einstein’s. The so-called “wrongness” is categorically different. Like Bomb’s mention of flat earth, which also isn’t a simplified version of the globe earth model. It is wrong at a foundational level. That’s not what is happening with Newton and Einstein.

The phrase “grossly contrary” in this context is certainly quantitatively wrong and qualitatively meaningless.

It is true that history is replete with scientists arrogantly stating their theories as fact, theories that later get replaced with more accurate, simpler, more aesthetic theories. So we shouldn’t hold too strongly to the idea that what we think we know is a “true” representation of “reality”.

The best theories are those that work and last. That these might get supplanted by others that expand upon them rather than defy them doesn’t mean they were “wrong”.

This has been a good discussion and afforded me the opportunity to refine my thinking on this subject, which is one of great interest to me.

Yes, I agree entirely. My raising the geocentric model of Ptolemy was in response to you correctly pointing out that the flat earth model was not only “grossly contrary” to reality, but easily disprovable because it made false predictions. It has been known since antiquity that the world was round and the ancient Greeks even more or less accurately measured its diameter (It’s a mystery to me why Columbus didn’t know this and thought the world was smaller than it really was).

The upshot is that we can indeed have false theories that are grossly contrary to reality yet are perfectly instrumentally useful. Ptoelemy’s model made accurate predictions that were employed for over a thousand years. In fact the church really wasn’t opposed to Galileo teaching heliocentrism as a calculational device; they just wished he wouldn’t teach it as being true.

The other upshot is, what does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

There were many estimations of the size of the Earth in the time of Columbus. Many wrong. Columbus very well knew of Eratosthenes estimate, but discounted it because it meant that Columbus could not reach India from Portugul. His ships were in serious trouble when he finally hit land, which was not India. Columbus was a lucky fool.

 

[pood]

There were many estimations of the size of the Earth in the time of Columbus. Many wrong. Columbus very well knew of Eratosthenes estimate, but discounted it because it meant that Columbus could not reach India from Portugul. His ships were in serious trouble when he finally hit land, which was not India. Columbus was a lucky fool.

But if he knew of it, I don’t understand how he could discount it, because it was pretty mathematically rigorous. And if he did not know of it, I wonder why he didn’t.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There were many estimations of the size of the Earth in the time of Columbus. Many wrong. Columbus very well knew of Eratosthenes estimate, but discounted it because it meant that Columbus could not reach India from Portugul. His ships were in serious trouble when he finally hit land, which was not India. Columbus was a lucky fool.

But if he knew of it, I don’t understand how he could discount it, because it was pretty mathematically rigorous. And if he did not know of it, I wonder why he didn’t.

Check out Wikipedia, the voyages of Columbus. His ideas of the size of the Earth was wrong, based on bad sources, and got shot down time and time again by various experts. He finally talked Isabella and Ferdinand into supporting him despite experts repeatedly telling them Columbus was wrong. Much silliness.

 

[EricH]

Genesis 3:19 "From dust you came and dust you go. For from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Well, there you have it — abiogenesis has been solved! By the Bible!

Just like the problem of the evil power of the one ring was solved by casting it into the fire of Mount Doom.

Why is there still dust?

Just keep the cameras focused on rocks or dust. With "no God necessary", hopefully for abiogenesis, someone down the line will notice it.

I suppose the same could be said for a god. Any god. .

 

[EricH]

You've got a holy book that only goes back a couple thousand years, and hasn't seen any updates.

Waitaminit! No updates? Why are there a shitload of versions then? Queen James alone added and subtracted whole swaths.

Ah good...
... to both your responses.
The religious are up-to-date, quite up there with the non-religious, which in fact means they're also in the scientific community! How's about that? The only thing perhaps, is that atheists need to update their arguments.

I don't have an argument. I have a fossil record. One that you are denying exists.

No not denying anything accept , the fossil records has had its issues.

Hi Learner. Sounds like you know what you are talking about. Can you cite a few of the known issues with the fossil record so we can discuss?

I was a doctor in real life, but paleontology was one of my great loves. I am still an avid fossil hunter at age 74. Can you talk about your experiences with fossils and what you feel are the shortcomings of learning about the past from fossils?

 

[Shadowy Man]

You've got a holy book that only goes back a couple thousand years, and hasn't seen any updates.

Waitaminit! No updates? Why are there a shitload of versions then? Queen James alone added and subtracted whole swaths.

Ah good...
... to both your responses.
The religious are up-to-date, quite up there with the non-religious, which in fact means they're also in the scientific community! How's about that? The only thing perhaps, is that atheists need to update their arguments.

I don't have an argument. I have a fossil record. One that you are denying exists.

No not denying anything accept , the fossil records has had its issues.

Hi Learner. Sounds like you know what you are talking about. Can you cite a few of the known issues with the fossil record so we can discuss?

Better yet, please cite appropriate articles in the literature on the topic of these issues.

 

[Learner]

You've got a holy book that only goes back a couple thousand years, and hasn't seen any updates.

Waitaminit! No updates? Why are there a shitload of versions then? Queen James alone added and subtracted whole swaths.

Ah good...
... to both your responses.
The religious are up-to-date, quite up there with the non-religious, which in fact means they're also in the scientific community! How's about that? The only thing perhaps, is that atheists need to update their arguments.

I don't have an argument. I have a fossil record. One that you are denying exists.

No not denying anything accept , the fossil records has had its issues.

Hi Learner. Sounds like you know what you are talking about. Can you cite a few of the known issues with the fossil record so we can discuss?

Hi Eric,

I remember there were certain discoveries and experiments that's all. I got to go through old notes (better discussing via desktop- edited this post 7 times). Not going to give much on the top of my head, there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones. Some these bones IIRC were discovered buried near the surface. This was some years back but things like these did cause a few issues. ( I just got to revise a bit).

I was a doctor in real life, but paleontology was one of my great loves. I am still an avid fossil hunter at age 74. Can you talk about your experiences with fossils and what you feel are the shortcomings of learning about the past from fossils?

That's amazing, seriously good on you.

To your question... I'll take that to be only slightly serious with a little sardonic undertone - assuming you have undoubtedly read my posts, that gives no indication of myself claiming to be anything near to being an avid fossil hunter, like yourself.

People quote scientists, or talk about the scientists experiments all the time, that shouldn't automatically mean they are talking of their own experiences (although oddly, some may be inclined to speak 'as if' indeed it was their own experience).

 

[Elixir]

there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones.

Why are bringing up more debunked complaints?
You have apparently made up your mind that there are “ issues” with the fossil record, but are unwilling to examine the basis for your faulty conclusion.
I think your “basis” is that the fossil record conflicts with your religious indoctrination. Because you have not raised a single “issue” that is actually an issue.

 

[Learner]

there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones.

Why are bringing up more debunked complaints?
You have apparently made up your mind that there are “ issues” with the fossil record, but are unwilling to examine the basis for your faulty conclusion.
I think your “basis” is that the fossil record conflicts with your religious indoctrination. Because you have not raised a single “issue” that is actually an issue.

In those days I wasn't a Christian then (I joined this forum as an agnostic). You are right, in terms of the conventional fossil record, it does conflict with the biblical pov.

 

[pood]

What is the “conventional“ fossil record?

 

[Learner]

Sorry I think that was some unconscious theist expression, thinking aloud. I mean the current fossil record.

 

[Elixir]

You are right, in terms of the conventional fossil record,

There is only one fossil record, Learner.
I am aware that hucksters like Hamm are selling something they call a different interpretation of the fossil record, but in truth the fossil record itself (along with physics, cosmology, biology etc etc) conflicts with Hamm, Ray Comfort and that gang. I find similar … mendacity coming from the ID gang (Dembski, Behe et al). but it’s a tiny bit more sophisticated.

If the fossil record is designed to appear other than what it is, what does that say about the “designer”?

 

[Learner]

there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones.

Why are bringing up more debunked complaints?

Missed asking..
...what was debunked ?