tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post5030450384313383821..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Why I believe in the Michelson-Morley experimentRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-25560544309057990722015-01-09T13:59:00.370-08:002015-01-09T13:59:00.370-08:00> That's an elementary theological exercise...> That's an elementary theological exercise: it demonstrates your faith, which serves as witness to others and helps them strengthen their own faith.<br /><br />Oh, I understand this. One can come up with awfully consistent-seeming justifications which are based in various bits of scripture. One can still challenge such people internally, such as with <a href="http://legacy.esvbible.org/Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-89284858083125768132015-01-09T13:45:29.207-08:002015-01-09T13:45:29.207-08:00> But this convergence is the evidence for meta...> But this convergence <i>is the evidence</i> for metaphysical truth.<br /><br />All it's evidence for is that you found a good-enough approximation. But if you know anything about control theory, you know that pretty bad models can work <i>perfectly well</i> for manipulating systems to one's heart's desire. This, of course, assumes finite desires of the heart, but that is always Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-84636787671386439062015-01-09T12:56:04.940-08:002015-01-09T12:56:04.940-08:00> Welcome to instrumentalism
No, I don't t...> Welcome to instrumentalism<br /><br />No, I don't think this is instrumentalism. I'm not an instrumentalist. I believe in a metaphysical reality, and I believe in the placebo effect. (And, as always, I believe both of these things because there is evidence for them.)<br /><br />> In my view, the test that multiple minds are exploring the same thing or person is if they can Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-4155524156138598952015-01-07T16:57:10.796-08:002015-01-07T16:57:10.796-08:00> The reason this argument doesn't apply to...> The reason this argument doesn't apply to God is that the palliative effect of *belief* does not require that the thing you believe in be true (that's the placebo effect).<br /><br />Welcome to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism" rel="nofollow">instrumentalism</a>, where scientific equations can match subjective perceptions without being [metaphysically] true. (A Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-58018737306186238972015-01-07T15:53:47.265-08:002015-01-07T15:53:47.265-08:00> a justification for believing the results of ...> a justification for believing the results of science is what science has delivered, what it has done for us<br /><br />No, that's not the justification. Belief in science is not justified by its utility. The fact that science allows us to manipulate our environment (for good or ill) is *evidence* that science is true. The fact that we can use the power that science gives us to Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-73215865114471790782015-01-07T10:48:52.224-08:002015-01-07T10:48:52.224-08:00> Another bad argument for God is that He must ...> Another bad argument for God is that He must be real because the idea of a world without God leads inexorably to unbearable existential despair. <br /><br />It's curious that you say this, when a justification for believing the results of science is what science has delivered, what it has done for us. And yet, the root of such an argument is that science gets me <i>what I want</i>. ThereLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-11081562930709300492015-01-05T13:29:19.220-08:002015-01-05T13:29:19.220-08:00Hm, I thought I did: the laws of physics are symme...Hm, I thought I did: the laws of physics are symmetric with respect to space and time. So there is no way to get a "here and now" out of them, except with respect to a particular observer. So everyone's "here and now" is different.<br /><br />Did you read the linked post?<br /><br />http://blog.rongarret.info/2006/11/elephant-in-atheist-living-room.html<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-64132121393431326352015-01-05T12:36:47.200-08:002015-01-05T12:36:47.200-08:00Can you explain why the laws of physics can't ...Can you explain why the laws of physics can't explain the "here and now"?ErnestOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13491058613470971173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19637520738181501412015-01-04T09:15:27.540-08:002015-01-04T09:15:27.540-08:00Unsatisfied how?
Sorry about the annoying captcha...Unsatisfied how?<br /><br />Sorry about the annoying captcha. I've turned it off for now, but if I start getting a ton of spam I'll have to turn it back on. Note that you can avoid the captcha by logging in to a Google account.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-43781292538768336222015-01-04T02:25:52.812-08:002015-01-04T02:25:52.812-08:00I think the GPS argument is a accurate description...I think the GPS argument is a accurate description of reality – yet, it leaves me a bit unsatisfied…<br /><br />(And in the name of the Jovian Moons, I really really hate the captchas, they got really difficult to solve for me… Spent literally miniutes typing down nmmyyllmrlmny blobs…)Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17656677562262684318noreply@blogger.com