= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Atheism = Untheism + Antitheism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (179)
"Science" can't "hold" somewhere and "not hold" somewhere else. Science is a process by which we reliably figure out stuff, build tools for figuring out stuff, and establish what is known and what isn't, what is more certain and what is less certain. It's not phlogiston that fills territory with knowability essence, it's a set of human activities, in which anything that works is welcome.
Replace "science" with "the hypothesis that everything is governed by physical laws that are never violated and explain everything"
I agree this hypothesis is not synonymous with science as a process, so I was not being precise.
However, is the hypothesis asserting what you accused me of believing? Is believing in this hypothesis believing in some kind of phlogiston that fills territory with knowability essence?
I'm afraid so. And I'm open to being critical of this.
It's also an empty statement. "Physical laws", at least fundamental ones, is by definition the description of that which governs everything, and at any point you have uncertainty about what's going to happen. If whatever concept of "physical laws" you have doesn't explain what happens, then those laws are falsified, so that they have to be modified to accommodate the new info, and probably include newfound uncertainty. If there turns out to be an intelligent tinkerer or goal-driven whatever behind the scenes, it gets included in the fundamental rules of the game, and studied scientifically.
It's not an empty statement. You gave the definition of physical laws, but the hypothesis is that the physical laws exist.
Is the belief in the existence of governing laws some type of false belief, like believing in a phlogiston of knowability or believing in God?
I'm beginning to think the whole difference between the LW perspective and the theist perspective might (just!) be the difference between a frequentist and Bayesian perspective. Is it possible that our brains are just hard-wired differently and we're all making some kind of mind projection fallacy? Oops, I meant typical mind fallacy. I can understand both points of view, but I find the frequentist view more natural. And when I understand the Bayesian point of view, it is through some kind of mental acrobatics, like I'm just pushing the frequentist perspective to a higher level of abstraction than the one I'm evaluating.
No, there is no such "hypothesis". You just study the world, and the more fundamental of the rules you learn are dubbed "physical laws".
Well said! -- this and your comments upthread.