|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/17/2005 : 18:44:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, as Dave pointed out, (earlier this thread) all that is required is brownian motion and a ton of luck. Also are you an expert on quantum mechanics? Unless you are you shouldn't categorically state what is not allowable under quantum theory. Quantum mechanics is hardly in line with common sense.
Ok. You determine the probability of a mouse living on the sun for a week. Say you get 1 in 10^X.
I'll bet you that if you took 10^(X+1) mice and dumped them on the sun, that every single one dies rapidly.
Why? Oh, gee... lets THINK about it for a minute. How many reasons are there that a mouse couldn't live on the sun for any appreciable ammount of time, let alone a week?
1. Temperature. Ok, MAYBE the diffusion effects could, in some extreme probability, account for this one. Maybe. The outer edge of the photosphere has a temp over 4000 Kelvin.
2. Pressure. The outer edge of the photosphere has a pressure 6.8x10^-3 Bar. About 1% that of Earth's surface.
3. O2 content. Essentially nonexistant.
4. Water requirement of mammals. No water to drink, you die in a few days even on earth in an air conditioned room. Water, at 4000 kelvin, would be rather difficult to drink. if any were even present.
Basically, you the mouse dies from vacum pressures and lack of oxygen, even if the brownian motion/diffusion of heat landed the mouse in a pocket of low temp it could somehow not fry in.
And so on and so on. It's an absurdity. The probability is zero.
quote:
Whether a human can shit out an SUV or not is irrelevant. You're missing the forest for the trees.
I understand epistemology (atleast the basics) and the various concepts involved with it. I just happen to be a fairly strict empiricist. All analytic statements are circular (subject = predicate), and no synthetic statements can be known a priori.
No. You're missing the point of what I'm saying.
Some things can be known with certainty.
Some things ARE impossible.
We can know, with certainty, that some things are impossible.
You can prove me wrong very simply.
Shit out an SUV.
Jump 1000 feet into the air from the surface of the earth using only the motive force of your own legs.
Provide genetic testing that demonstrates I'm the biological mother of any member of this forum.
Change an elephant into a butterfly with some magic coconut oil.
and so on. and so on. and so on.
Simply put: It's absurd to claim that "nothing is impossible".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 02/17/2005 18:46:00 |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 07:03:51 [Permalink]
|
Some poor deluded fundie or para-whatever may visit this site because they are thinking about coming over to the side of critical thinking. One look at the lengthy discussion of whether it is possible to shit out a SUV and they are going to say "a 10,000 year old earth and moving objects with your mind is nothing compared to what these guys think is possible!". 
I would say it is much more likely that the Earth was formed 5 minutes before my birth or that Atlantis is inhabited by crystal carrying Bigfoots (bigfeet?), than the possibility that a mouse can live on the sun or I could shit out an SUV.
This has got to be one of the goofiest threads I've ever seen on the Skeptic Friends, Verlich won't even touch this thread because it is so silly!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 10:11:04 [Permalink]
|
Rick asked:
quote:
Does that mean you think it is possible for a mouse to live on the Sun and that you can shit out an SUV?
No.
If you believe either of those things are possible you have no business calling yourself a skeptic.
And if I need to explain why - you have no buisness calling yourself rational.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 21:20:55 [Permalink]
|
Ricky you have basically said nothing is impossible, therefore anything is possible, even something a rational person thinks is impossible (ie shitting a SUV).
Skeptics need proof and you appear to be saying, unless I am missing something, that you don't need proof because anything is possible.
Do Gods live on Mt Olympus - it's possible
Is there a city of mice living on the sun - it's possible
Is the center of the Earth hollow and inhabited by aliens - it's possible.
Do you see why I would think that this kind of thinking goes against the typical skeptics way of thinking?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 21:36:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Some poor deluded fundie or para-whatever may visit this site because they are thinking about coming over to the side of critical thinking. One look at the lengthy discussion of whether it is possible to shit out a SUV and they are going to say "a 10,000 year old earth and moving objects with your mind is nothing compared to what these guys think is possible!".
Personally, I think what should be stressed is that "it's possible" is a meaningless phrase precisely because anything is categorically "possible" in the sense that without absolute knowledge we cannot know with certainty that it isn't.
Indeed, insanity would be the norm if we couldn't rule anything out. Thus, I stress the need to make certain assumptions. Like what? Like that there is such a thing as a reality. That our senses enable us to create a reasonably accurate (though imperfect) facimile of that reality. The premise that the universe operates under a set of rules and that the fundemantals of logic apply to them. (I think Dude would argue are these are not assumptions, but basic common sense. In many ways I would agree.) Once those assumptions are made, then yes, we can rule out shitting SUVs and a 5,000 year old Earth.
The thrust of this thread isn't to accept that anything is possible. Rather, it's to ask "What are the rules we should all agree to play by so that we can begin to rule things out?" I think it begins by abandoning the concept of certainty altogether.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/18/2005 21:38:04 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 00:08:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Personally, I think what should be stressed is that "it's possible" is a meaningless phrase precisely because anything is categorically "possible" in the sense that without absolute knowledge we cannot know with certainty that it isn't.
You only need some knowledge, not absolute knowledge, to know with certainty that some things are impossible.
It is an abandonment of rational thought to claim otherwise.
Anyone who looks at the statement "It may be possible for a human to shit out an SUV." and agrees with it.... needs a psych eval and a drug test.
Seriously, if you can't say (with certainty) that it's impossible for a human to shit out an SUV, then you really don't have any business calling yourself a skeptic, or even rational.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 04:52:54 [Permalink]
|
Dude, you can't claim certainty of truth without making very specific assumptions first at the basest level of knowledge. Hindus believe that the world isn't real, that everything we see, including us, is the dream of a sleeping god. If he should wake up, we would disappear. I suppose in a god's dream someone could shit out an SUV.
Of course that isn't my worldview, but the manner in which you claim certainty inclines me to believe you still don't understand what I've been driving at.
quote:
Seriously, if you can't say (with certainty) that it's impossible for a human to shit out an SUV, then you really don't have any business calling yourself a skeptic, or even rational.
No shit! Of course you can't be either rational or a skeptic unless you first accept certain premises. Rationality and skepticism are human constructs (or "tools" as I've heard you call them) that aid us in building a sensible picture of reality. We adopt them to make our lives easier. They serve as guides and allow us to make progress in life and as a species. Without them we'd be mindless animals who could never grow from one day to the next. I consider them absolutely essential. But we cannot be certain that our premises are the absolute truth!
All we can do is say that something does not fit within a particular worldview. If we choose reason (and it is a choice), then shitting an SUV is incongrous with everything else we know about physics and the human digestive system. It doesn't fit within the model of reality we've constructed, so we chuck the idea out. It's easier to suppose that shitting an SUV is simply impossible within our framework than it is to try and fit it in. We can state that it is impossible within our model. Now of course that needed be qualified for everything. For the most part people assume we are all using the same model of reality. You could just lob off the end of that statement and say "Shitting an SUV is impossible" because everyone, consciously or unconsciously, has already accepted certain premises.
I'm just trying to get you to think about those premises and why we accept them, because if our construction of reality is to have any value, it must be maintained and reaffirmed. If you can explain to someone why we accept that shitting out an SUV is impossible (and not just saying "duh, it's common sense"), then you are on much firmer ground when you try to explain to someone why something that isn't necessarily common sense is also impossible. Take Storm and her psychic energy. If what she were saying we true, we would literally have to discard our entire model of reality. It doesn't fit or mesh with anything that we already have. That's why we label it impossible. Not because we know it with absolutely certainty, but because it conflicts with everything we've built upon the premises we've already accepted.
Consider this my last post on this topic btw. This is as clear as I can be. If you disagree with me after with post, then I guess I'll just have to let it drop.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/19/2005 04:55:28 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 07:34:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude, you can't claim certainty of truth without making very specific assumptions first at the basest level of knowledge
I disagree that these are assumptions. If you don't recognize that there is a reality independent from your own internal thought, then the universe is rendered down to little more than a nonsense fantasy created in your own mind.
It is a recognition of fact, not an assumption, that reality is independent of our internal mental processes.
If not, then there is no meaning or value to anything we ever say or do.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 16:00:55 [Permalink]
|
Personally, I think it's hilarious that the example here for the impossible is shitting an SUV. (BTW, Google only gives one hit for "Shit out an SUV"-- a distinction I'm sure SFN is happy to hold  |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 16:58:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Skeptics need proof and you appear to be saying, unless I am missing something, that you don't need proof because anything is possible.
Hopefully my above post cleared this up, but I felt like I had to respond to this anyways. Furshur, if this is really what you think I am saying, then you are missing a whole lot. I am not talking about evidence of things here, nor am I talking about trying to find the truth. What I am talking about is two data sets, one being of things of impossibility and one being things of possibilities.
If we allow our assumptions, such as "I exist" and "The laws of physics and chemistry don't change," then there is a whole lot of things that belong under the impossibility data set, such as shitting out an SUV.
But when talking about overall possibility, however small it may be, we are not allowed to use assumptions, because assumptions can always be wrong as they are assumed to be true. If we aren't allowed to use assumptions, then just about everything becomes possible, except that which goes against a given premise and something logically impossible.
Again, I am not talking about what is real or whether or not we need evidence. Only these two data sets, and that is it. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 02/19/2005 17:00:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 17:21:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I disagree that these are assumptions. If you don't recognize that there is a reality independent from your own internal thought, then the universe is rendered down to little more than a nonsense fantasy created in your own mind.
It is a recognition of fact, not an assumption, that reality is independent of our internal mental processes.
If not, then there is no meaning or value to anything we ever say or do.
You're getting down to the bare-bones philosophy of science, Dude. And it is a philosophy, based upon one thing for which we will not ever have empirical evidence: that there exists an objective reality.
We simply cannot demonstrate that we're not the result of some God's dream, or that we're not a part of a Matrix world, or that I'm the only living person, and this computer and the SFN itself aren't a hallucination I'm having due to a fever.
Is it practical to think that perhaps these things might be true? Of course not, that's why we relegate the questions to philosophy, and live our lives (most of us, anyway), as if there is an objective reality. But, when push comes to shove, the question "can I prove beyond all doubt that this is the real world?" cannot be answered in the affirmative. We can prove it to reasonable levels, but we can't know it to 100% accuracy.
It's why there are such things as "phenomenology" and "solipsism."
Anyway, I'd like to suggest (as if I haven't already) that perhaps the line of disagreement here is that of practicality. If Ricky wants to argue that we can't know what's impossible because we cannot verify the objective reality, fine, but everybody's gotta understand that it's a philosophical argument and not a scientific or even logical argument. Because for all practical purposes, rectally generated SUVs are an impossibility.
And Cune, I'm sad to say that we only made third place for "rectally generated." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 18:53:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You're getting down to the bare-bones philosophy of science, Dude. And it is a philosophy, based upon one thing for which we will not ever have empirical evidence: that there exists an objective reality.
Maybe. But I 100% guarantee you that if this were all my own personal internalization or fever dream, the universe would have different rules.
Every action anyone of sound mind ever takes is made with the certainty that there is an objective reality. If they choose to recognize the fact or not.
Seriously, if anyone is not certain that the world around them exists independently from/of them, I reccomend less LSD. It can be amusing to play the philosophers game and question this, but the first time you step into traffic convinced that reality is only a dream, you'll be in for a rude awakening.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
