mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-04-16, 00:15   #89
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux View Post
Further, even if I had been referring to whether or not I had put on the clothes, a photo would be insufficient for me.
Well, there would have to be further elaboration, such as some way of assuring that the photo wasn't faked, some way of assuring just when/where it was taken and who's in the picture, and specification of film(if applicable) and camera. But I'd consider those to be ordinary precautions, to be applied in all cases of photographic evidence (and covered by our earlier presumption that all parties are honest and sincere). There would be other routine precautions to be applied to other types of evidence to assure their genuineness, trustworthiness, and so on.

What else did you have in mind as insufficiencies?

Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, and we now *are* referring to the same something (i.e. whether or not I put on my clothes this morning), I still don't find your method as satisfying my notion of proof.
Any dissatisfaction other than routine evidence-type-specific precautions?

I ask because I'm wondering whether you're simply talking about my not having explicitly specified such routine evidence-type-specific precautions in saying that I seem more lenient. I didn't claim that my earlier casual specification of photographic evidence was intended to be absolutely complete in and of itself.

I just took it for granted that the detailed evidence-type-specific guarantees of genuineness, such as would be routine in important scientific contexts, were not what you were aiming at. Were they?

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2010-04-16 at 00:27
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-16, 02:07   #90
Zeta-Flux
 
Zeta-Flux's Avatar
 
May 2003

7×13×17 Posts
Default

Quote:
What else did you have in mind as insufficiencies?
Basically, the nature of reality. I view reality as *fundamentally* full of uncertainty. We can minimize it, but not eliminate it.

Quote:
I didn't claim that my earlier casual specification of photographic evidence was intended to be absolutely complete in and of itself.
Thank you for the clarification.

Quote:
I just took it for granted that the detailed evidence-type-specific guarantees of genuineness, such as would be routine in important scientific contexts, were not what you were aiming at. Were they?
You are right. My issues have more to do with the natural limitations of science, reality, uncertainty, and so forth. Not that I let that stop me from believing I'm not deluded. Just that I'm also never certain I'm not deluded.
Zeta-Flux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-19, 18:50   #91
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

5·7·112 Posts
Default

The question of certainty versus the possibility
that you are "deluded" is only removable if you
settle for yourself the issue of solipsism.
Don't fall into solipsism. Reason suffices.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-19, 19:00   #92
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

253218 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
The question of certainty versus the possibility
that you are "deluded" is only removable if you
settle for yourself the issue of solipsism.
Don't fall into solipsism. Reason suffices.
Is the following solipsitic?

Hypothesis: the observable universe is a simulation running on (what, for the sake of an argument, I will call) a computer?

Does your answer depend on whether a (presumably) intelligent agency created the computer and/or programmed the simulation?

Paul

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2010-12-19 at 19:01 Reason: I couldn't resist: Solipstic on your collar, and all that.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-19, 19:04   #93
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

5·7·112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
Is the following solipsitic?

Hypothesis: the observable universe is a simulation running on (what, for the sake of an argument, I will call) a computer?

Does your answer depend on whether a (presumably) intelligent agency created the computer and/or programmed the simulation?
I would say yes to the first, and the second would be a given
if it were true, which it is of course not.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll: Death Penalty & Abortion Uncwilly Soap Box 65 2015-12-18 03:19
Vista Black Screen of Death wombatman Lounge 25 2015-06-24 13:01
Clicks of death, good opportunity to switch to Linux jasong jasong 4 2013-12-28 02:47
Prize allotment in case of death? JuanTutors Lounge 6 2010-06-30 23:38
Blue Screen Of Death dave_0273 Hardware 17 2005-05-19 14:33

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:26.


Thu Oct 28 04:26:55 UTC 2021 up 96 days, 22:55, 0 users, load averages: 2.20, 2.27, 2.40

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.