GENIUS FORUMS

It was impossible to resist posting the following quote I read today in Nassim Taleb's book: The Black Swan

It's from a dead obscure French guy called Simon Foucher and his Dissertation on the Search for Truth from 1673. Still it captures it well:

One needs to exit doubt in order to produce science - but few people heed the importance of not exiting from it prematurely.... It is a fact that one usually exits doubt without realizing it ... We are dogma-prone from our mother's wombs.

vicdan wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:there's no statistical independence between measurements on different particles even without known interactions.

Oh? if you are saying what i think you are saying, I just gotta see some evidence on this one. Entanglement is one thing, but you seem to be claiming that even non-entangled particles exhibit dependent distribution of outcome measurements.

The particles that are involved in quantum statistics are seen as "indistinguishable" so it boils down to be a single particle system anyway. This leads then to one quantum equilibrium possible, one or more throws of one or more dice, so to speak. The observed state of one particle is influencing the probability of the state of any other involved.

To speak of quantum statistics with distinguishable particles wouldn't make sense.

On the topic of quantum mechanics and determinism, here's some good stuff: The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics and the more mathematical The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics both by Nobel prize winner Gerard 't Hooft.

Same goes to claim "there's indeed such a thing as random chance". That's just saying to Dan that we can and possibly never will be able to predict everything.

That's only meaningless if you foolishly obsess over ontology, and assume that we can speak about how things are apart from how they are perceived. This is exactly the noumenal delusion I mentioned before -- the thing which bites QRS in the ass time and time again.

Sure, hard nomological determinism could be seen as "cosmological hypothesis" or a pure logical stance that in no way influences any application of science or reason. But the 'QRS' seems to consider it, in the more common shape of causality, as an inevitable meta-logical truth that lies at the base of all other relative truths. Or: one cannot live by inductively established theories alone.

It's a matter of recognizing, realizing that deduction is occurring. But since it cannot enter the scientific realm as anything other than abstract axiom or inductive theory, it's tempting to categorizing it as faith. But if it would be instead right view than it could never be challenged, it will always surface again and again as undying principle. And it always has so far. If it's a delusion, it's one that's by all indications inseparable from the core of our being and might as well be called truth just for the hell of it!

Nick Treklis wrote:Any good professor or scientist will admit that science is faith, many have.

The ones who don't understand the philosophical underpinnings of science, and who thus buy this claptrap about scientific method being taken on faith. Sure.

You people just desperately need science to be as bad as your own delusions...

It's probably due to being raised in a Jewish culture where the religious/faith based mindset runs deep.

Ooops! I was raised an atheist.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

vicdan wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:there's no statistical independence between measurements on different particles even without known interactions.

Oh? if you are saying what i think you are saying, I just gotta see some evidence on this one. Entanglement is one thing, but you seem to be claiming that even non-entangled particles exhibit dependent distribution of outcome measurements.

The particles that are involved in quantum statistics are seen as "indistinguishable" so it boils down to be a single particle system anyway. This leads then to one quantum equilibrium possible, one or more throws of one or more dice, so to speak. The observed state of one particle is influencing the probability of the state of any other involved.

[LOL]

So each throw of the quantum die affects the subsequent throw. Wow.

Dude, just because we can model all the particles using the same math doesn't mean they affect each other's probability distributions. The very notion of entanglement was postulated because usually particles don't affect each other's probability distributions. Duh.

To speak of quantum statistics with distinguishable particles wouldn't make sense.

Different particles have the same statistical characteristics, and independent quantum outcome distribution is generally one of them.

Sure, hard nomological determinism could be seen as "cosmological hypothesis" or a pure logical stance that in no way influences any application of science or reason. But the 'QRS' seems to consider it, in the more common shape of causality, as an inevitable meta-logical truth that lies at the base of all other relative truths. Or: one cannot live by inductively established theories alone.

Watch me.

It's a matter of recognizing, realizing that deduction is occurring.

So? Deduction is only as solid as its premises. We can posit formal premises and draw deductively valid conclusions from them by mechanically applying the axioms of predicate logic. However, this entire system breaks down when you make even the slightest move outside the purely syntactical symbol-pushing. The problem occurs not in symbol-pushing -- logical transformations applies to sentences -- but in tying symbols to the sensible world. That is why the notion of analyticity fails, and why certainty is an illusion unless you are talking about nothing but symbols (and even then, arguably).

Thus, what QRS call 'deduction' can be called 'deduction' only in metaphorical sense, similarly to how Sherlock Holmes used the term. :) Elementary, my dear Diebert!

vicdan wrote:You mean platonic ideals?

Yes, thanks, that's what I meant.

If so, then yeah, they are rather similar -- platonic ideal forms could be known by their reflection upon the world, but not directly (and like QRS, Plato thought the human mind could come to know the ideal forms via contemplation). They of course are undergirded by different ontologies (platonic ideals are, well, ideal, noumena don't have to be), but they relate to sensible world in a similar manner.

That's pretty much what I was thinking - that these are somewhat different, but really different aspects of what I would say is the same basic error.

Positing forms, essences, noumena, are all forms of reification - treating something as having objective (or "inherent") existence, when really it is a category of thought.

vicdan wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Any good professor or scientist will admit that science is faith, many have.

The ones who don't understand the philosophical underpinnings of science, and who thus buy this claptrap about scientific method being taken on faith. Sure.

You people just desperately need science to be as bad as your own delusions...

Who said anything about science being bad? I'm just being honest. You might want to try it some time.

vicdan wrote:

It's probably due to being raised in a Jewish culture where the religious/faith based mindset runs deep.

Ooops! I was raised an atheist.

Whether you were raised an athiest or zionist has nothing to do with what I was pointing out.

Shahrazad wrote:David,

I can't imagine a perfectionist who is happy with being deceived by their own minds, but perhaps that's just me.

I think it is just you.

Please explain why refusing to investigate doubts to a ridiculous degree is deceiving oneself.
-

The existence of doubts means that your mind is still being taken in by false assumptions.

This is not to say, of course, that the absence of doubts automatically means an absence of false assumptions. False certainties also utilize them.

-

Nick Treklis wrote:Whether you were raised an athiest or zionist has nothing to do with what I was pointing out.

You claimed I was raised in a jewish culture. I wasn't. I didn't even know my grandparents were jewish until i turned 14 -- it was kept a secret. USSR was a scary place.

You claimed I was raised in a jewish culture. I wasn't. I didn't even know my grandparents were jewish until i turned 14 -- it was kept a secret.

And yet you identify with the Jew culture, or Jew religion, or Jew ethnicity, or something. This is something that I don't get.

vicdan wrote:You claimed I was raised in a jewish culture. I wasn't. I didn't even know my grandparents were jewish until i turned 14 -- it was kept a secret. USSR was a scary place.

It doesn't really matter if you knew you were jewish or not. Jewish culture I'm sure has had a direct influence on your bloodline for thousands of years, which I suspect has subconsciously conditioned your mind to be what it is today. Thus, the the fact that Jewishness whether secular, or not, is so heavily influenced by religion (see here), it appears that the religious or faith based mindset is a very powerful trait in people who identify themselves as jewish.

Faith, I think, is very powerful within the Jewish culture. It can be faith in anything though, even faith in Jewishness itself. What's important is that the faith is strong.

Nick,

Thus, the the fact that Jewishness whether secular, or not, is so heavily influenced by religion (see here), it appears that the religious or faith based mindset is a very powerful trait in people who identify themselves as jewish.

So if he had never found out he was a Jew, he would not have the faith based mindset?

If you didn't know you were a human, would that mean you weren't heavily influenced by human culture?

Nick,

If you didn't know you were a human, would that mean you weren't heavily influenced by human culture?

No.

My question was because you said this:

it appears that the religious or faith based mindset is a very powerful trait in people who identify themselves as jewish.

, which implies that self-identification was a requisite.

Shahrazad wrote:And yet you identify with the Jew culture, or Jew religion, or Jew ethnicity, or something. This is something that I don't get.

No, you don't.

Damn, I never have enough tissues to get me through that blog entry.

Nick Treklis wrote:

vicdan wrote:You claimed I was raised in a jewish culture. I wasn't. I didn't even know my grandparents were jewish until i turned 14 -- it was kept a secret. USSR was a scary place.

It doesn't really matter if you knew you were jewish or not. Jewish culture I'm sure has had a direct influence on your bloodline for thousands of years, which I suspect has subconsciously conditioned your mind to be what it is today. Thus, the the fact that Jewishness whether secular, or not, is so heavily influenced by religion (see here), it appears that the religious or faith based mindset is a very powerful trait in people who identify themselves as jewish.

[LOL] wow, what a stupid cretin you are.

I have rejected every single faith I ever came in contact with -- communism, NewAge, xianity, judaism, etc. For you to claim that I have a special jewish propensity to faith is, frankly, delusional. You are off in la-la-land. Even if you are firmly convinced that I hold my philosophical views on faith, that would still leave me immeasurably less faith-bound than vast majority of the populace. You would only understand that if you were honest of course, which you aren't.

Faith, I think, is very powerful within the Jewish culture. It can be faith in anything though, even faith in Jewishness itself. What's important is that the faith is strong.

Delusional and ignorant.

Unlike xianity and islam, moron, judaism actually pays little attention to faith. in judaism, what you do is infinitely more important than what you believe. belief plays a second, or even third, fiddle. As a culture, jews are far less suffused with faith than any xian or muslim people.

However, actually understanding the matter holds no interest to you. Instead, you wish to ascribe some intellectual sin to the jews. Good going, kiddo.

Dan Rowden wrote:Damn, I never have enough tissues to get me through that blog entry.

I can sell you a box. Cheap! Special deal, a friend price just for you! :)

Dan,

Damn, I never have enough tissues to get me through that blog entry.

I should make a similar one, about what it means to be a Panamanian that lived through the colonization and liberation period, and how we got the Canal back. You'll need more tissues to read that.

I couldn't write a similar entry about being Arabic, though. In my case, experience is stronger than genes.

vicdan wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Damn, I never have enough tissues to get me through that blog entry.

I can sell you a box. Cheap! Special deal, a friend price just for you! :)

Do business with a Jew? Let me check the Protocols first.

Just don't ask where the tissues were made.

Dan Rowden wrote:Do business with a Jew?

of course. We are totally trustworthy! You have my word on it!

Saw a muslim/arab protestor the other day holding up a sign saying, "Death to the Juice". Don't know if he was trying to be funny or not. He looked serious.

-

vicdan wrote: Unlike xianity and islam, moron, judaism actually pays little attention to faith. in judaism, what you do is infinitely more important than what you believe. belief plays a second, or even third, fiddle. As a culture, jews are far less suffused with faith than any xian or muslim people.

This is a warped way of looking at it. What is key here is monotheism, the creation of a distant, invisible, disembodied entity. Christianity and Islam are later incarnations from the same branch. Mind you all three faiths have their ongoing temptations: incarnation of a Son or angels, prophets as incarnated mouthpiece and God-given holy land(s). All three religions wrestle with such materialization.

What is so pragmatic about Judaism throughout history when they first bring themselves in extremely unfavorable circumstances and challenges, forcing them to constantly deal with the bloody implications? Of course one becomes utterly pragmatic in a very narrow sense of pure efficiency when identity is continuously threatened or pushed towards compromise and reform!

Every religion revolves around its practice, this cannot be a serious claim specific for Judaism! It betrays one is just slightly more familiar with it than the other religions.

Anyway, monotheism is nothing but an ancient philosophical principle, not unlike the concept of being God's people or God's child or living in God's holy land. It was only through materialist interpretations it became faith in these things as actual existing realities thereby causing great alienation from reason over time.

Faith should not be conflated with religion. One can believe in something existing literally but which isn't really there, just as much as one can believe in something that has no material manifestation or evidence, like many abstract concepts. These processes can be found outside religion just as much as in it.

David Quinn wrote:Saw a muslim/arab protestor the other day holding up a sign saying, "Death to the Juice". Don't know if he was trying to be funny or not. He looked serious.

-

A lot of folks still want O.J. Simpson to fry for the 1994 murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. His football nickname was "The Juice." Maybe that was the reference.

Shahrazad wrote:

it appears that the religious or faith based mindset is a very powerful trait in people who identify themselves as jewish.

, which implies that self-identification was a requisite.

It should be obvious that one doesn't have to be conscious of all or most of the causes that determine who and what they are for causality to be at work. But jewish people, or people heavily influenced by jewish culture, appear far more faithful than other ethnicities.