On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:35:34 +0000, in ,
The Natural Philosopher  wrote:

>On 12/01/2021 21:38, TimS wrote:
>> And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not
just
>> made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty
trying
>> to be witty.
>
>That of course is why you need to really understand the Matrix proposition.
>
>That what appears to be the case could actually be utterly and
>completely wrong.
>
>And that is why Einstein smashed materialism unwittingly. He came up
>with an equivalent narrative that was utterly different from Newtonian
>metaphysics.

Utterly different in terms of the mathematics, but the result for
objects observable by Newton is essentially unchanged. It's only at
the infinitesimally small and incredibly massive scale that Newton,
Einstein, and Quantum theory differ.

>Which was true? They couldn't *both* be true. And that shattered the
>assumption of materialism, that the world in facts was pretty much the
>way it appeared to be, with all the secrete hidden Laws swept up into a
>tidy bundle of linear differential equations..we kept the linear
>differential equations, but we traded in absolute time and absolute flat
>space for accuracy of prediction.
>
>And now with quantum physics, we are trading in strict Causality as well.
>
>And that is why philosophers of science have retreated from the position
>that you espouse, to a more useful working relationship with science,
>not as revealing facts, but as the construction of efficient models that
>work and give accurate predictions
>
>God theories work, but not to give accurate predictions. They work to
>bring meaning to peoples lives and to regulate the behaviour of societies.

But assertions about God are essentially infinitely less provable than
scientific assertions about physical objects.

>Once you abandon the idea that science or materialism and its underlying
>assumptions, its 'a-prioris',  are the One True Stick, and see them just
>as another set of assumptions that need to be made to achieve certain
>things then you realised religion is no different except in its purpose.

I think you've stepped squarely into the arena of sophistry with this.

>Neither has any monopoly on the Truth. Both are in the end inductive
>hypotheses - working from effects to causes -  and therefore subject to
>the Problem of Induction', namely that given an effect, the here and now
>experience of your life, you cannot unequivocally say what *causes* it,
>and indeed the notion that *something must have*, is another unwarranted
>assumption that you are making.
>
>That the material world, space time,  and our normal reasonable
>assumptions of cause and effect *work*, especially in physics (though
>less well in politics) is, in the end *not* 'strong evidence' that they
>are *correct*. Newton could have said the same about his forces, Neo
>about the Matrix.  Galileo did say that about his heliocentrism, and yet
>all of them proved to be only limited approximate *models*. Which is
>precisely what the Catholic church tried to tell Galileo.

The Catholic church wasn't dealing in anything but belief and a fear
that an unprovable religious view would be proven incorrect whether or
not the view held by Galileo was perfect. It was close enough to
throughly disprove the view of the church and thus Galileo had to be
silenced.

It would be best if science left the unprovable beliefs of religion
alone simply because belief by definition is unprovable one way or
another.  And for religion to leave the views of science that
accurately describe the world we can observe alone... especially when
they're thoroughly provable.

>To say more than that is to claim certainty where none exists, We appear
>to be beings that do not have unlimited computing power at our disposal,
>and the approximation of a 'real solid objective world out there,
>comprised mostly of 'things' we can ignore because 'they don't eat us
>and we can't eat them'' is a *useful* way to handle it. A good ad hoc
>working *model*. And if you can't handle the loneliness, and absolute
>lack of any hint as to what you ought to be doing about it,  by all
>means shove an omniscient-creator-that-gives-a-shit in there, if it gets
>you through the night.

No problem, but don't shove him down the throat of those who don't
care to believe... unless one can provide the same level of proof for
the existence of such a supreme being as science can provide for its
assertions.

>Religion and science have their place. But neither is demonstrably true
>or indeed can be said to have any decidable truth content.

Sophistry.

>My argument is to dethrone *both*, and see them for what they are.
>Useful *models* that in their own way work, but neither of which should
>ever be held up to the the One and Only True Stick.

I know someone who is deeply religious and too often pushes his
beliefs well past the point of being annoying. When I get tired of it
I ask him to "prove it" at which point he goes off on a well prepared
and rehearsed tangent involving the nature of absolute truth. I ask
him to define some of the words he uses. The end result is that he
goes in circles and can't prove anything... doesn't even try to prove
anything just goes on about the nature of absolute truth... all of
which doesn't mean that a God absolutely doesn't exist, but that it
can't be proven and should be left in the realm of belief and those
who don't believe should be spared from having it shoved down their
throats. Science is built on demonstrably provable things with more
recent theorys being subject to acceptable proof before being widely
accepted.

Science and religion should stay out of each others arena despite the
interesting and amusing debates that arise when they don't.
--
Jim H

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05