Monkeys and type writers
Discussion
Gene Vincent said:
So for any 'philosopher' to question the need to concentrate on what gave philosophers their collective breath (the uncharitable might call it wind) is irony piled upon irony.
The concentration on what works, means you are warm and well fed and can punch a keyboard with your stubby little fingers all day long, pontificating about philosophy and how much better or more valid it is... the irony is lost on you, but to me it is stark
The concentration on what works, means you are warm and well fed and can punch a keyboard with your stubby little fingers all day long, pontificating about philosophy and how much better or more valid it is... the irony is lost on you, but to me it is stark
Berthold Brecht said:
Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral
Jinx said:
Gene Vincent said:
So for any 'philosopher' to question the need to concentrate on what gave philosophers their collective breath (the uncharitable might call it wind) is irony piled upon irony.
The concentration on what works, means you are warm and well fed and can punch a keyboard with your stubby little fingers all day long, pontificating about philosophy and how much better or more valid it is... the irony is lost on you, but to me it is stark
The concentration on what works, means you are warm and well fed and can punch a keyboard with your stubby little fingers all day long, pontificating about philosophy and how much better or more valid it is... the irony is lost on you, but to me it is stark
Berthold Brecht said:
Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral
Jinx said:
mattnunn said:
I've a feeling Brecht had a different context in mind!
Depends if he was using yiddish slang...... Jinx said:
mattnunn said:
The Bertolt Brecht I have in mind was certainly not Jewish, I don't know that he would use yiddish slang, I may have missed something in this conversation, probably because I'm thick, like Gene suggests.
Fressen is yiddish slang for cunnilingus HTH 
No wonder the third reich wanted rid of the jews, that kind of double entendre could bring a country down!
Bedazzled said:
mattnunn said:
Bedazzled said:
An interesting philosophical question is why is the universe comprehensible?
You've assumed it is?1) The universe is pretty simple
2) The universe is complex but luckily humans have the innate ability to understand all things
3) The universe is complex but luckily humans have the ability to learn to understand all things
4) Humans do a good job of convincing themselves of any or all the 3 of the above by use of imagination and narrative they can selectively arrange the infinite data in the universe into something that makes sense to them.
The first 3 would lead to their being some sort of undeniable truth out there somewhere, and end to a very long story.
The last one leaves the universe as an infinite blank canvas upon which we can cheryy pick our colours and textures and paint the pictures we like.
I think I know which is most likely. If the universe contains all probablilty - can their been a single undeniable truth. As agreed previously the monkeys could equally create Shakespear or Mozart, we would all have a preference to which we'd prefer.
I reckon the universe is astonishingly simple and yet massively complex at the same time. That you can describe the motion of the stars and planets (for example) with a simple set of equations that can be taught in schools is amazing. That the relatively simple set of fundamental laws can produce a universe of such incredible variety is amazing.
Matt, i think your approach comes from a fallacious assumption that science is looking for the point at which it can sit back and say "ah, that is what it is all about, nice work everyone, we now know The Truth. Everyone back to mine for tea and medals and reflections on the real meaning of what we've discovered".
i also think you have a 'god or science' question lurking in the wings.
All your perspectives are particularly human - you want 'truths', by which I think you mean 'stories' - nice, contained, start-middle-endings that you can draw lessons or purpose from. That is an error. We are incidental to the universe - a tiny adjunct to the main. Nuclear holocaust and earthly armageddon and pandemic viruses are nothing as to the flow of what is actually going on 'out there'. Science seeks that knowledge. It is for poets to draw parallels to the speck of human experience and so whittle from knowledge 'truths' for their own gratification and intellectual aggrandisement.
Higgs wasn't found because it was sought. It was sought because it was found (long ago, on paper).
A nebula isn't beautiful. Rather our experience of a nebula is that which we call beautiful. Very different.
i also think you have a 'god or science' question lurking in the wings.
All your perspectives are particularly human - you want 'truths', by which I think you mean 'stories' - nice, contained, start-middle-endings that you can draw lessons or purpose from. That is an error. We are incidental to the universe - a tiny adjunct to the main. Nuclear holocaust and earthly armageddon and pandemic viruses are nothing as to the flow of what is actually going on 'out there'. Science seeks that knowledge. It is for poets to draw parallels to the speck of human experience and so whittle from knowledge 'truths' for their own gratification and intellectual aggrandisement.
Higgs wasn't found because it was sought. It was sought because it was found (long ago, on paper).
A nebula isn't beautiful. Rather our experience of a nebula is that which we call beautiful. Very different.
mattnunn said:
Bedazzled said:
An interesting philosophical question is why is the universe comprehensible?
You've assumed it is?wormburner said:
A nebula isn't beautiful. Rather our experience of a nebula is that which we call beautiful. Very different.
I think that statement is more aligned to philosophy than science. We could say anything we perceive is our interpretation. I think it deserves a thread all of its own.Derek Smith said:
wormburner said:
A nebula isn't beautiful. Rather our experience of a nebula is that which we call beautiful. Very different.
I think that statement is more aligned to philosophy than science. We could say anything we perceive is our interpretation. I think it deserves a thread all of its own.The nubula just is, and things we know or learn about it are neither hindered nor helped by a cluster of humans thinking it beautiful. The attribution to it of poetic nonsense is an irrelevance.
wormburner said:
Derek Smith said:
wormburner said:
A nebula isn't beautiful. Rather our experience of a nebula is that which we call beautiful. Very different.
I think that statement is more aligned to philosophy than science. We could say anything we perceive is our interpretation. I think it deserves a thread all of its own.The nubula just is, and things we know or learn about it are neither hindered nor helped by a cluster of humans thinking it beautiful. The attribution to it of poetic nonsense is an irrelevance.
Perhaps revisit the OP. Probability was the topic, in a universe capable of limitless possibles, where we're told all things are certain, why would anyone choose one particular truth over another?
mattnunn said:
So your saying science is the process of removing humanity from human perception? Presumably you feel your vision of a binary non poetic universe makes you somehow rise above? I jest with you... Pay no attention.
Perhaps revisit the OP. Probability was the topic, in a universe capable of limitless possibles, where we're told all things are certain, why would anyone choose one particular truth over another?
What truths do you see us having choice between?Perhaps revisit the OP. Probability was the topic, in a universe capable of limitless possibles, where we're told all things are certain, why would anyone choose one particular truth over another?
My base assumption is that the universe exists (i.e. it's not a simulation). It exists regardless of whether there is anyone to observe it. It is the aim of science to explore that existence, explain the "how?" of it while avoiding falling into the trap of the "why?". The world of the "why?" is a fascinating philosophical landscape but the truth sought by science is not part of that world.
Edited by ewenm on Tuesday 10th July 22:00
mattnunn said:
wormburner said:
Derek Smith said:
wormburner said:
A nebula isn't beautiful. Rather our experience of a nebula is that which we call beautiful. Very different.
I think that statement is more aligned to philosophy than science. We could say anything we perceive is our interpretation. I think it deserves a thread all of its own.The nubula just is, and things we know or learn about it are neither hindered nor helped by a cluster of humans thinking it beautiful. The attribution to it of poetic nonsense is an irrelevance.
Perhaps revisit the OP. Probability was the topic, in a universe capable of limitless possibles, where we're told all things are certain, why would anyone choose one particular truth over another?
This isn't a universe of limitless possibilities, were did you get that from? All things are not certain. Only things that are, are certain. Your understanding, or your presentation of your understanding, of probability is poor.
No choice between truths is necessary - if both truths are true, they cannot by definition be contradictory. If they are contradictory, by definition at least one of them cannot be true.
Please troll better.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff