Tulpa.info - metaphysics

Zen

Why though? That's what science is actually useful for.

because we have never seen the future, only the past

Of course we have?

3:16 AM

What would you call measuring something, then measuring it again after action, if not measuring the past and future of an object?

3:16 AM

The rules we write are often time-dependent.

in the past we have been able to predict things about the future, and when that became the past we figured out that those were correct, but those predictions are no longer about the future, and it is also possible that it was just lucky that they turned out to hold up

This is why the scale and repeatability of evidence is vital, yes.

Zen

What would you call measuring something, then measuring it again after action, if not measuring the past and future of an object?

measuring the further past and more recent past

We observe empirically that empiricism fails to hold up unless it is done repeatedly from multiple different angles with many tools. Stray parameters must be eliminated and any scrap of doubt removed.

3:18 AM

Until the pattern is verified

Breloomancer

measuring the further past and more recent past

This is semantic, these laws are for concluding what will happen in the future.

3:18 AM

This is what we use laws for.

3:19 AM

For landing on moons without crashing into it faster than sound.

patterns don't matter, only causation. things correlate often, but without knowing why they correlate, you cannot use it to predict anything

based on what?

Zen

This is semantic, these laws are for concluding what will happen in the future.

there is a real difference between what will still be the future and what was the future

Are you contending that predictive models of the future work?

3:21 AM

Because they very much do?

Zen

based on what?

well if you do a study to find the relationship of thing A and thing B, and find that they correlate together, you still don't know whether thing A caused thing B or if thing B caused thing A or if some third force caused both of them, or if they both caused each other, or if it was just a coincidence

Zen

Are you contending that predictive models of the future work?

yes, that is what I have been saying this whole time. they have never been demonstrated to work

Again I can't stress enough how the written laws of nature are used repeatedly to work.

That is literally how science and tested, by seeing if it can make predictions BEFORE the observation to verify that they can predict, in advance, what will happen.

in the past. but we have never seen the future, so we don't know shit about it

Without them there is no measuring basic things, like speed.

yeah

Hypotheses are generated by observing what has happened in the past, but they are tested literally on their ability to predict future observations.

That's predictive.

everything that we have built up is extremely fragile and it could all end any second

No, that's a presumption.

3:25 AM

That has at no point ever happened.

And there is no reason to think that it would, or even could ever happen.

science iterates, it has never randomly collapsed entirely.

3:26 AM

predictively speaking, empricism suggests we should not make a statement on its collapse until such a time as it does.

Scarlet

Hypotheses are generated by observing what has happened in the past, but they are tested literally on their ability to predict future observations.

no, they are tested based on their ability to predict past future observations. there has never been a single future observation

Zen

No, that's a presumption.

it would be presumption to say that it will happen, but I am just saying that it could, because I don't have reason to believe that it couldn't

Why does that matter? Also technically not true. Look at a black hole, time collapses within one, looking at one can technically be considered looking at the future.

has anyone ever looked in a black whole?

You can see the distortion of space time at the edge, and yes.

no, because information cannot escape from them

It's quite empty.

3:30 AM

Not true either

3:30 AM

radiation escapes from black holes.

can we know anything about the future based on that?

@Breloomancer What would you propose as a better alternative for understanding and making predictions?

there is no good alternative. we have no way to understand the future or make predictions as things currently are

So what do you suggest we do, abandon science? Or do you even have an actual argument here?

If you believe rationalism yes. Empiricism relies on one and only one presumption, as I've said.

there is no reason to do anything. do what you want

Rationalism cannot make sense of reality, it fails.

Is this all just a means of maintaining special pleading for your sacred cow beliefs?

But empiricism seems to work, even though it relies on that one assumption.

this was all just an argument about hypotheticals, was it not?

What is the value?

the value is that it is interesting to talk about and think about

Because it seems like you're just playing semantic games.

3:33 AM

Is it?

I think so

What is interesting about it?

I agree with that assertion. Logic is amusing to us, we are creatures amused by puzzles by default.

I don't know. I don't know why a lot of things are interesting

But our logic blows.

3:34 AM

We rely on tools and empiricism because of it.

Just randomly holding on to the belief that the laws of the universe could suddenly change, for the first time ever known is interesting? Why?

3:35 AM

Does it have any value? Would you propose utilizing that view when making predictions and planning for the future?

That event would be interesting but it does not have any cohesion with the evidence thus far. So far as we know the universe is predictable.

what do you want me to say? there is no practical application. this is #metaphysics

1

You were originally using it as a means of justifying your view that the universe could just randomly start collapsing. But you surely don't use that kind of reasoning in the rest of your everyday life.

well we got a bit off track

That why I said, it seems like you're just using it for the sake of special pleading a belief that to you, is a sacred cow.

3:38 AM

Why save for the future if the laws of the universe could change tomorrow such that you no longer require sustenance, shelter, or anything else?

I was pointing out a fundamental problem that I see with our understanding of the universe. that problem is biggest in areas like the expanding of the universe, but it is present everywhere

But you don't actually have a better alternative, and you don't actually use that kind of reasoning for anything else. That's literally what special pleading is.

3:41 AM

You're applying a different standard for this that you don't actually apply to other beliefs.

I would point out that the conclusion that the universe is objectively predictable is as of yet still empirical.

3:42 AM

It is concluded because the laws we have allow prediction. Not a presumption by itself.

3:42 AM

Consider the full weight of that statement: All of science is really dedicated to understanding and then prediction. All science still points toward the universe being consistent.

I know that I won't fall through my chair when I sit on it because there are multiple layers of abstraction that are explained before it gets to the big "it just is", but there aren't very many abstractions between "the universe is exponentially expanding" and "it just is", so I am therefor less confident that it will continue to do so

why? The only thing that makes the universe expand is that it is exploding away from itself. It's a fairly simple mechanism. The dark energy impact was not present initially, and I'd point out that whilst it adds complexity it fundamentally adds to the process rather than detracts from it. We would not presume in a vacuum that gravity will invert, or the effects of nuclear fission will spontaneously undo themselves. That's presumption. We observed a thing and the only conclusions we can make are based on those things.

we know that the universe is expanding. we infer that there must be a force causing this. but we don't know anything about this force or where it comes from. conversely, I know that gravity will pull me down onto my chair, and I know that my chair will cause an equal and opposite reaction upwards, thus keeping me suspended, and I know the laws that make the chair do that as well. maybe basing your confidence on a system that fundementally is illogical based on how many layers of abstraction people have been able to make using that system is illogical, but if you want to strictly use deductive reasoning, you can't really come to many useful conclusions about the universe

we infer that there must be a force causing this

Again I'd add that this is not the case. The original force that caused expansion was the big bang.

but it is accelerating, which means that there has to be more to it than just that initial force

Force is required for the acceleration, which begun roughly 4 billion years ago. Not for the actually expansion.

wait, nevermind that last post

Also at this stage I would point out that even dark energy is unempirical.

3:57 AM

The only reason we believe it exists is because we can calculate its hypothetical existence through the laws of thermodynamics through the predictive model. But this is not the same thing as measurement.

3:58 AM

At the moment the correct empirical response is no response. More data required, as it were.

so do we actually know the reason why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate?

Even looking for dark energy could taint results.

3:59 AM

At a cursory glance there are five dark-energy reliant theories and one which posits that our understanding of gravity is incomplete.

4:00 AM

four*

4:00 AM

The fifth category here is for tertiary theories.

4:00 AM

Dark Matter is of course, the same.

4:01 AM

It by itself is not measurable but we can detect it via gravitational equations. This is not sufficient evidence by itself of its existence, but gravity-measurement is precise and we can detect positioning with it, allowing us to directly point at it and put it on a map.

4:02 AM

In a vacuum we don't know if the equation is incorrect or it does exist.

4:02 AM

So it is inconclusive.

I think that I might want to brush up on my theoretical physics before I can really contribute at this point

4:03 AM

also, I need to get to bed

4:03 AM

bye

Me too tbh, cya (edited)

Breloomancer

there is no reason to do anything. do what you want

Now we're talking! :p

And that seems to be all, lol.