I don't go along with any of that. For one thing, you are attempting to use logic to prove your point, one that you think is significant enough to be worth mentioning, so already you are going against everything that you express in your post. Not even you believe your own arguments, it would seem
I have no idea how you interpret any dissonance in what I'm saying. I'm not contradicting anything by using logic because
I am not the one arguing in favor of anything beyond the materialistic. So using logic works fine for me.
What I've been trying to do is show how the use of logic under the pretense of searching for an "ultimate truth" that exists beyond the confines of the known universe is silly. There is no such knowledge (aka certitude) to be potentially gained.
Logic is simply the art of drawing conclusions from what is perceived.
Logic is the the
process of sensibly determining a conclusion from understood principles of non-contradiction.
Otherwise, by the above definition, a person on hallucinogenics "perceiving" purple spotted camels in tutus makes them a "logically" sound entity.
The logic of the original quote, as an earlier poster (Fujaro) poignantly stated, leads to an infinite regress. For every over-universe you think you discover beyond this one that would lead you to believe you achieved an "ultimate truth" there can conceivably be one above it with entirely different properties that voids your conclusions.
The uncertainty inherent in science and empirical theorizing derives from what science actually is - namely, a system of knowledge that finds its support in what is observed through the senses.
When you say "the uncertainty of science" what you really are referring to is the uncertainty of
humanity. You are talking about the potential for fallibility in our human sensory tools. So, yes.
Since we can never experience the sense-world other than through the senses, it follows that we have no means of ascertaining just how reliable our sense-information is.
If you disregard the universe we live in, yes. If you choose to toss away the obvious and repeatedly sound method of tangible reality...which some people like to do in a theoretical world, but which you have not done in practicality even by sending the last post (which required you to
presume the physical laws of the universe that led you to think hitting plastic buttons on an electronic machine while a particular array of light-emiting particles were shown on a rectangular display object would magically turn into modern hieroglyphics that I would understand and be able to reply to).
If two people have competeing points - one saying a ball immediately in front of them is made of plastic and the other saying it is made of jello -
physical reality gives us the tools by which to verify not only which of the two propositions is more probable, but also which is factual. Materialism (and the scientific method, as a fine-tuned structure coalesced to best interpret it) provides this means of differentiating...one which is "supported" every day. It works within the parameters of our universe.
Saying we could be a virtual reality machine doesn't change anything because when I'm playing Super Mario Bros., unless I'm using a hacked version, Mario
still can only jump (roughly) 2 inches vertically, even if
I can jump a foot vertically; meaning, the physical "truth" about my over-universe has no bearing on the structure of that sub-universe and the laws of that sub-universe remains constant to what they're set to.
Or to put it more simply, we can never step beyond the senses (or their technological equivalents) and observe what is "out there".
Exactly. Which is precisely why, when we discard materialism and the scientific method, we willingly release the only means we have of determining a differentiation in the likelihood of something (even if it's only provisional). At that moment, any and every thing imaginable becomes equally likely - which leads to
no knowledge; no truth. Furthermore, our certainty about this uncertainty is also part of the set, so we cannot be even certain about that...rendering the entire concept of "ultimate truth in all possible scenarios" incoherent.
Again, this is a truth which derives from what science is, and will always remain true for as long as science retains its current identity.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. That we just imagine ideas into reality? I find it a bit ironic that you both took the time to add snickers towards the end of the podcast when Victor described a poignant epiphany related to the correlation between AI and humans, describing it as "science fiction"-ish, when this search for something outside science (which, again, is you covertly saying "outside our reality") is even
more science-fiction (and I say this because it appears to me that you are not entering upon this endeavor from the perspective of a quantum physicist, actually curious about the ways mutiple dimensions or multiverses could function [which might have some merit], but treading upon the thought process purely from metaphysical philosophy hoping to possibly garner more than what we can as humans).