Why expect the sun to rise tomorrow? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Why expect the sun to rise tomorrow?
in Philosophy

By DeeDee 432 Pts
The sun appears over the horizon every morning is our expectation irrational?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • @Dee

    Inductive reasoning is perfectly rational and necessary for everyday living.
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @Neopesdom

    We have have no more reason to suppose it will rise than we have to support it won’t.

    One believes an inductive argument can justify a belief in its conclusion, despite not providing a logical guarantee that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be. 

  • WinstonCWinstonC 27 Pts
    The sum of our knowledge suggests that the Earth orbits the Sun daily due to gravity. As such, the expectation that this will continue is reasonable unless some event takes the Earth out of orbit. Since such events appear rare for planets (we have lots of planets for reference) the expectation that the sun will "rise" tomorrow seems the most likely to be true.
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @WinstonC

    You say .....
    The sum of our knowledge suggests that the Earth orbits the Sun daily due to gravity.

    My reply .....Agreed 

    You say .... As such, the expectation that this will continue is reasonable unless some event takes the Earth out of orbit.

    My reply .....How is it reasonable ? You’re reasoning to a conclusion on what you haven’t observed , you’re making an assumption 

    You say ......Since such events appear rare for planets (we have lots of planets for reference) the expectation that the sun will "rise" tomorrow seems the most likely to be true.

    My reply ....Seems the most most likely is grounded in inductive reasoning   the argument is circular since  induction has been right in the past it will be in the future 
  • WinstonCWinstonC 27 Pts
    @Dee "How is it reasonable ? You’re reasoning to a conclusion on what you haven’t observed , you’re making an assumption"

    I'm saying that if nothing relevant changes then it is reasonable to expect that things will continue as before.

    "
    Seems the most most likely is grounded in inductive reasoning   the argument is circular since  induction has been right in the past it will be in the future"

    No, I'm saying that we have a decent understanding of why the sun rises based on empirical observations. As such, unless something relevant changes it makes sense to expect that the sun will continue to rise. Further, we have evidence from observation that the probability of something happening that will cause the sun to cease to rise is extremely low.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 27 Pts
    @Dee To be clear, our understanding of why the sun orbits the earth and the fact that something relevant would have to change in order for this to cease is deductive. I accept that probability is inductive reasoning, though inductive reasoning isn't irrational or circular.
  • @Dee

    ??? Are you feeling well Dee? ;) 
     You’re reasoning to a conclusion on what you haven’t observed
    We did and still do observe that the sun rises above the horizon every day, unfailingly since well, quite a few millennium...   Not to expect the sun to behave this way would be the irrational belief, considering all we know and did & do observe every day... Remember, a belief says nothing about the "Truth" of the belief...  

    I don't know where you wanted to go with this but it makes no sense... Had your coffee this morning? ;)



    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 432 Pts


    You say .....??? Are you feeling well Dee?  

    My reply .....I’m perfectly well 
     You’re reasoning to a conclusion on what you haven’t observed
    You say .....We did and still do observe that the sun rises above the horizon every day, unfailingly since well, quite a few millennium...   

    My reply .....Correct 

    You say ......Not to expect the sun to behave this way would be the irrational belief,

    My reply .....It wouldn’t , it’s actually perfectly rational the opposite is in fact irrational as it’s presumptive, the Sun may continue  to rise but we have no justification for believing so


    You say ........consider  all we know and did & do observe every day... Remember, a belief says nothing about the "Truth" of the belief...  

    My reply ......But what about what we don’t know how do you factor that in?

    You say .......I don't know where you wanted to go with this but it makes no sense... Had your coffee this morning? 

    My reply ......Actually I think you’re being unfair , this exact argument continues to perplex philosophers and scientists demonstrate exactly where the argument is flawed 
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @WinstonC

    You say .....

    I'm saying that if nothing relevant changes then it is reasonable to expect that things will continue as before

    My reply .......But do not know what we think we know, it’s based on induction which has been accurate up  to now but how does that guarantee it will be in future?

    You say ......No, I'm saying that we have a decent understanding of why the sun rises based on empirical observations.

    My reply .....Again you’re appealing to induction which is circular , first you must justify that nature is uniform how do you do this?

    You say ......As such, unless something relevant changes it makes sense to expect that the sun will continue to rise. Further, we have evidence from observation that the probability of something happening that will cause the sun to cease to rise is extremely low.

    My reply ......Yes all appeal to induction , what we’ve observe happen give  us no clue as to what will happen in the future 
  • Dee said:
    The sun appears over the horizon every morning is our expectation irrational?

    Because the Earth spins around every time...

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Dee

    The sunrise problem, or more accurately Hume's problem of induction deals with knowledge...Hume says that we cannot know that the sun will rise, and he's right, but expectation by definition is not knowledge... 

    If you had asked "Do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow", the answer is no, answering yes would be irrational...
    To the question "Will the sun rise tomorrow?" The only valid answer is "I don't know"... We will actually know, only when we do see it rise, or not... Knowledge will come with the observation, not before...

    But you asked "can we expect" the sun to rise tomorrow...  Asserting that the sun will rise tomorrow and asserting there's a good chance the sun will rise tomorrow, is not saying the same thing at all... 

    Small but important difference... ;) 


    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 432 Pts


    You say ......

    The sunrise problem, or more accurately Hume's problem of induction deals with knowledge...Hume says that we cannot knowthat the sun will rise, and he's right, but expectation by definition is not knowledge... 

    My reply ,......It’s strange you totally dismissed what I was saying until my closing comment and now you’re referring to Humes position regarding induction , yes expecting the Sun  to rise tomorrow is not knowledge it’s speculation 

    You say .....If you had asked "Do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow", the answer is no,

    My reply .....Yes , but very few will will admit the answer is no such is our conditioning based on induction 

    You say ......answering yes would be irrational... 

    My reply .....But yet the majority will say the opposite and claim you’re insane to assert otherwise 

    You say .......To the question "Will the sun rise tomorrow?" The only valid answer is "I don't know"... We will actually know, only when we do see it rise, or not... Knowledge will come with the observation, not before...

    My reply .....Agreed 

    You say ......But you asked "can we expect" the sun to rise tomorrow...  Asserting that the sun will rise tomorrow and asserting there's a good chance the sun will rise tomorrow, is not saying the same thing at all... 

    My reply .....Both are flawed positions as the matter has not been decided

    You say ......Small but important difference...  

    My reply .....It makes no difference as it’s based on inductive reasoning which is circular 
  • Based on the balance of probability there are more reasons for us to infer that the sun will most likely rise tomorrow during our current lifetime. Albeit there may exist the minute possibility that it won't the probability lies towards that it will. 

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • @Dee
    You say ......But you asked "can we expect" the sun to rise tomorrow...  Asserting that the sun will rise tomorrow and asserting there's a good chance the sun will rise tomorrow, is not saying the same thing at all... 
    My reply .....Both are flawed positions as the matter has not been decided
    Expectation is the key word here Dee...  Expectation is not a claim of knowledge nor a claim about truth, but a claim about probability, that's all...
    It's irrelevant whether the matter has been decided or not as that relates to knowledge and we agreed that expectations are not concerned with knowledge... 
    You say .....If you had asked "Do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow", the answer is no, 
    My reply .....Yes , but very few will will admit the answer is no such is our conditioning based on induction 

    You say ......answering yes would be irrational... 
    My reply .....But yet the majority will say the opposite and claim you’re insane to assert otherwise 

    And? What are the implications regarding the problem? I fail to see how it's relevant... It shows them wrong but it has no incidence or says nothing more about the actual problem, no?

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    edited June 29
    "@Dee

    This sounds like some kinda David Hume reasoning. Which in turn is a total lack of reasoning. Despite Mr Humes claim, our senses combine to construct other forms of reasoning beyond simple sight, hearing, feeling, taste, balance, and perception of location. He believed that the "self" doesn't actually exist, and there is no mind that can evaluate and react to the experiences we have. According to him, our lives are only the experiences we have, and we are just helpless viewers of those experiences. According to him, our lives are only the experiences, and nothing else. What was his reasoning behind his idea that the "self" doesn't exist? Because he searched and searched for proof of the "self", and he couldn't find it. Sorry, but that's not very convincing to me. This kind of reasoning is a flirtation with nihilism. We would need to jump to conclusions without any proof or reasoning to fortify those conclusions.

    I can't deny that solipsism is virtually impossible to dispute. It's a philosophical trap. Our senses can't be trusted without question, because beyond the scope of our senses nothing can be unquestionably deciphered by us, but recklessly coming to the conclusion that others don't exist, or our experiences are only false illusions is not solipsism, it's nihilism. We would need to ignore all the evidence that tells us others do exist and our lives are more than just an illusion to reach that nihilistic conclusion.

    I think a better question for you is, can you prove that we can't prove a negative? Perhaps you can start by disproving gravity exists.








  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    You say .......Expectation is the key word here Dee...  Expectation is not a claim of knowledge nor a claim about truth, but a claim about probability, that's all... 

    It's irrelevant whether the matter has been decided or not as that relates to knowledge and we agreed that expectations are not concerned with knowledge... 


    My reply ......An expectation is a belief about what will happen in the future. Expectations are concerned and based on inductive reasoning which is knowledge based 




    You say .....And? What are the implications regarding the problem? I fail to see how it's relevant... It shows them wrong but it has no incidence or says nothing more about the actual problem, no?


    My reply......You’re quibbling about the term expect , I bet if I asked instead will the sun rise tomorrow I would receive more or less the same answers 

  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @piloteer


    You say ......This sounds like some kinda David Hume reasoning. Which in turn is a total lack of reasoning. 


    My reply .....It’s actually older than Hume , how do you demonstrate Hume reached his position through a lack of reasoning?


    You say .....Despite Mr Humes claim, our senses combine to construct other forms of reasoning beyond simple sight, hearing, feeling, taste, balance, and perception of location. He believed that the "self" doesn't actually exist, and there is no mind that can evaluate and react to the experiences we have. According to him, our lives are only the experiences we have, and we are just helpless viewers of those experiences. According to him, our lives are only the experiences, and nothing else. What was his reasoning behind his idea that the "self" doesn't exist? Because he searched and searched for proof of the "self", and he couldn't find it. Sorry, but that's not very convincing to me. This kind of reasoning is a flirtation with nihilism. We would need to jump to conclusions without any proof or reasoning to fortify those conclusions.


    My reply ....I haven’t mentioned or appealed to Hume 


    You say .....I can't deny that solipsism is virtually impossible to dispute. It's a philosophical trap. Our senses can't be trusted without question, because beyond the scope of our senses nothing can be unquestionably deciphered by us, but recklessly coming to the conclusion that others don't exist, or our experiences are only false illusions is not solipsism, it's nihilism. We would need to ignore all the evidence that tells us others do exist and our lives are more than just an illusion to reach that nihilistic conclusion.


    My reply .....I’ve asserted or made no comments about the nonexistence of others etc , etc 


    You say .....I think a better question for you is, can you prove that we can't prove a negative? Perhaps you can start by disproving gravity exists.


    My reply .....Why is it a better question? You’ve given no response to the question I’ve actually asked so why would bother responding to yours?

  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    What we have observed so far gives us no clue as to what will happen in the future , what is your justification for believing such?

  • What we have observed so far gives us no clue as to what will happen in the future , what is your justification for believing such?

    I am talking about probability. Don't you think that due to the current scientific studies over the last centuries concerning the earth, sun, universe, etc that we have good reasons to believe that it is very ikely that the planet Earth will continue to revolve around the sun for some time?

    Moreover, our common sense fools and tells us that the Sun rises and sets when in reality it actually doesn't. "

    Here's what scientists say about "sunrise" and "sunset":

    The sun stays in its position at the center of our solar system. It doesn't rise and set. But it appears to rise and set because of the Earth's rotation on its axis. It makes one complete turn every 24 hours. It turns toward the east." - https://journeynorth.org/tm/mclass/SunriseSetAns.html


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    edited June 29
    @Dee


    You may not have mentioned Mr. Hume, but there's no denying that your question is actually an appeal to skeptical empiricism and you will question the validity of objective rationalism at every corner. David Hume didn't create empiricism, or a rejection of objectivity, but he did embody the most radical dedication to empiricism with a rabid rejection of objective rationalism. He questioned why it's rational to believe rain will always fall as water. His was a profound skepticism without regard for how slippery the slope to nihilism is. As far as demonstrating Mr Humes lack of reasoning, I thought I did that when I pointed out that his reasoning that the self doesn't exist was because he couldn't find it. I guess all I can say to Mr. Hume is, thanks for the effort?!?!?


    You also may not have mentioned solipsism directly, but your appeal to it is also undeniable, whether you mean for it to be, or not. How does this skeptical line of thought not cover solipsism, or even nihilism? (Not to say I think you are nihilistic) Would it be safe for me to assume that the question you're really posing is, if we haven't actually experienced something ourselves, how can we truly know of it's existence, or functionality? Solipsism is covered by this line of thought as well. How do YOU know that this life is not just a simulation that was programmed by you, and you programmed it purposely so you would forget the reality that you designed this simulation in? We all have dreams, do we not? We all know that what happens in those dreams are not reality, right? Well, if we dreamed those things in this reality, it can't be denied they do actually exist, so who's to say it's not actually reality, and when we're awake, that's actually the dream? Mario does actually exist, we've all played those games. Who's to say Mario doesn't have some sort of thought process that we could call an experience, or a life? That's solipsism!!! 

    Watch out everybody, here comes an empirical argument for objective reasoning. So long as I've lived (If anyone tries to guess my age, so help me God, I'll block them), I've never witnessed an objective rational proof be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. I've not heard a reliable argument that makes me question whether the earth is round, or gravity is real. It's been pointed out to me that when the earths shadow is cast onto the moon, it always has a curvature, therefore it can be reasoned that the earth is round. If the earth was flat, we would be able to observe a flat shadow being cast on the moon. I've never read or heard of anybody who has witnessed a flat shadow being cast on the moon. Not by anybody alive today, or anybody who lived in the past. To disagree with the cross checked measurements that gravity exists, or the earth is round would require ignoring unquestionable evidence. I have yet to hear a satisfactory argument that the earth doesn't rotate around the sun (the distance between the earth and sun and their sizes have been determined). The earth also rotates like a top which gives us the illusion that the sun rises and sets. To question this reasoning, we would need to first poke holes in the method of reasoning itself, but it cannot be disproven using the same method that it took to decipher the objective evidence that's been presented to me which convinces me of it's truality (that's not a real word, but it fricken should be). I have not ever witnessed any objective proofs being disproven!!!!!

    So now I've  demonstrated my reasoning as to why I believe the sun "rises". If somebody here feels like they can take a wack at convincing me that any objectively deciphered evidence is false, I hope they may feel so inclined.
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @piloteer


    You say .......You may not have mentioned Mr. Hume, but there's no denying that your question is actually an appeal to skeptical empiricism and you will question the validity of objective rationalism at every corner. David Hume didn't create empiricism, or a rejection of objectivity, but he did embody the most radical dedication to empiricism with a rabid rejection of objective rationalism. He questioned why it's rational to believe rain will always fall as water. His was a profound skepticism without regard for how slippery the slope to nihilism is. As far as demonstrating Mr Humes lack of reasoning, I thought I did that when I pointed out that his reasoning that the self doesn't exist was because he couldn't find it. I guess all I can say to Mr. Hume is, thanks for the effort?!?!?


    My reply ......leaving Hume and others aside ,the bigger question I’m asking is one asking questions of induction , I do not subscribe to any one position regarding philosophy , politics or most things I have over the years like some changed positions when a convincing argument has appealed to me.


    Many people misunderstand my  position regarding this question as in I do believe the sun will rise tomorrow as I cannot help but think this way as humans when exposed to regularity firmly believe regularity will continue , belief is a response to patterns we have experienced and in the example supplied we expect to continue with out justification as it’s claiming certainty about future events based on induction , how is it rational to claim such?

    If it can be confirmed at all that nature is uniform we can only do so by appealing to locality and observing nature around us , but such justification would be inductive making our argument circular.

    You say .....You also may not have mentioned solipsism directly, but your appeal to it is also undeniable, whether you mean for it to be, or not. How does this skeptical line of thought not cover solipsism, or even nihilism? 

    My reply .....I dislike labels and putting people in boxes as people are complicated , I’m deeply interested in challenging what people mostly accept as “common sense “ and this sort of sheeple mentality that abounds where the populist and safe positions are rigidly adhered to without really giving it much thought.

    Mostly in life I’ve always gone the opposite way in debates just to see how far I could push and probe as I find it intellectually satisfying to do so , most the times one is verbally attacked , mocked or called insane such is the annoyance a lot find in having their particular world view challenged

    Incidentally I do not include you in this sheeple group as your piece is interesting and engaging 


    You say.....Not to say I think you are nihilistic) Would it be safe for me to assume that the question you're really posing is, if we haven't actually experienced something ourselves, how can we truly know of it's existence, or functionality? 

    My reply ......Broadly yes , I find the reasoning in the Sun rising question is rational and there is something in us that makes most think “ this is insane and utter nonsense” when I asked this question one person on the topic asked me was I “alright” another tries to turn it into a semantic “gotcha “ as in the science behind Sun rise , these are typical reactions because the question causes annoyance to ,it’s this knee jerk reaction gets to me.

    Whether one likes or dislikes Hume one thing he wasn’t was stupid in fact quiet the opposite, we are basically saying induction has worked up to now and will do so in the future , how has what has worked so far give us a clue as to what will happen in the future?


    You say.....Solipsism is covered by this line of thought as well. How do YOU know that this life is not just a simulation that was programmed by you, and you programmed it purposely so you would forget the reality that you designed this simulation in? We all have dreams, do we not? We all know that what happens in those dreams are not reality, right? Well, if we dreamed those things in this reality, it can't be denied they do actually exist, so who's to say it's not actually reality, and when we're awake, that's actually the dream? Mario does actually exist, we've all played those games. Who's to say Mario doesn't have some sort of thought process that we could call an experience, or a life? That's solipsism!!! 


    My reply ......All interesting questions and fun to ponder now and then 


    You say....... Watch out everybody, here comes an empirical argument for objective reasoning. So long as I've lived (If anyone tries to guess my age, so help me God, I'll block them), I've never witnessed an objective rational proof be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. I've not heard a reliable argument that makes me question whether the earth is round, or gravity is real. It's been pointed out to me that when the earths shadow is cast onto the moon, it always has a curvature, therefore it can be reasoned that the earth is round. If the earth was flat, we would be able to observe a flat shadow being cast on the moon. I've never read or heard of anybody who has witnessed a flat shadow being cast on the moon. Not by anybody alive today, or anybody who lived in the past. To disagree with the cross checked measurements that gravity exists, or the earth is round would require ignoring unquestionable evidence. I have yet to hear a satisfactory argument that the earth doesn't rotate around the sun (the distance between the earth and sun and their sizes have been determined). The earth also rotates like a top which gives us the illusion that the sun rises and sets. To question this reasoning, we would need to first poke holes in the method of reasoning itself, but it cannot be disproven using the same method that it took to decipher the objective evidence that's been presented to me which convinces me of it's truality (that's not a real word, but it fricken should be). I have not ever witnessed any objective proofs being disproven!!!!!


    My reply .....But we are talking about two different types of knowledge, Hume has an interesting piece on this .....

    Hume approaches this question by distinguishing between two sorts of knowledge: knowledge of relations of ideas, and knowledge of matters of fact:

    “All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, relations of ideas, and matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of geometry, algebra, and arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. ...Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. ...

    Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same

    manner; ...The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. ...”


    You say ......So now I've  demonstrated my reasoning as to why I believe the sun "rises". If somebody here feels like they can take a wack at convincing me that any objectively deciphered evidence is false, I hope they may feel so inclined.


    My reply .....Thank you for your response and taking time to do so 


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1702 Pts
    One of the corner-stores of logic developed in Ancient Greece, and which we use to this days, is the idea that the world obeys a set of static laws. If certain effects are observed with incredible regularity, then it is reasonable to assume that there is a law responsible for it, and it is not just a random occurrence. 

    We have seen the Sun rise every morning for thousands documented years, and we believe that we understand pretty well from the scientific perspective why this happens. As such, we are fairly confident that tomorrow it will happen again, even though we cannot prove it with 100% certainty.
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    @Dee

    I can appreciate that you've "always gone the opposite way in debates just to see how far [you] could push and probe as [you] find it intellectually satisfying to do so , most the times one is verbally attacked , mocked or called insane such is the annoyance a lot find in having their particular world view challenged". I hope you didn't consider any of my argument mockery, or verbal abuse. I don't think you're insane either. I don't believe that you're nihilistic or that you  believe you're the only person who truly exists. I understand what you're trying to do here, it's an interesting topic none the less.

    First, I'd like to point out that the idea of "locality" is being dismantled as we speak. Ever since non-locality has been proposed, nobody has been able to refute it, including Einstein (He tried his hardest, but he eventually conceded to Niels Bohr). In the 70s, it was tested, and the results were considered highly plausible that non-locality is the true nature of the universe. The jury is still out on all this, but it seems that not all actions are just reactions of earlier actions. Some may feel uneasy to realize that the universe is not planned, or has any kind of natural order. It's all anarchy. But some may take comfort knowing that their life is not predetermined and free will does exist. I also like to point that out when people try to argue that free will is an illusion (@MayCaesear). As far as I'm concerned, if you wanna prove predeterminism is the true nature of the universe, you need to refute non-locality, or you need to go the long way around and refute the validity of math and science.

    I understand your qualms with rigid indoctrination, but I have two problems with that point of view.

    1. Science (especially modern science) is far from rigid. The science of anarchy is very interesting and even a little unnerving. 

    2. There seems to also be a knee jerk reaction to recklessly reject any objective evidence simply for the sake of rejecting it. 

    1. Even the very foundational pillar of what drove the scientific revolution is being turned upside down. The idea of a materialistic universe is slowly being washed away, and being replaced by the idea of an idealistic universe. Idealism (in physics) is the idea that our universe can be influenced or even manipulated based on how WE see or understand it. Materialism stipulates that energy can't be created or destroyed, but the big bang theory poked the first hole in the materialistic point of view by showing ALL energy was created, and it all happened in the same moment. Also non-locality suggests that every thing that exists in the universe is influenced by every other thing in the universe (that's idealistic, not materialistic). The double slit experiment suggests that certain types of matter may know when it's being observed and will act differently because of that (look it up. It's bonkers). That same experiment also suggests that we can influence the past. Dr. James Gates (theoretical physicist) always wondered why we are taught that the smallest thing is an atom. But right after we're told that, we are taught what an atom is made up of. If an atom is made up of other smaller things, then obviously those things are smaller than an atom, so an atom isn't the smallest thing. That made him wonder what the smallest thing actually is. What's the smallest thing that can be considered a thing, without being made up of other things? What he found may make some people want to pull their teeth out of their face. He found that everything that can be considered a thing is made up of ones and zeros. This isn't backwoods science, he's a renowned physicist. When Neil Degrass Tyson pointed out that it's like computer code, he answered, "not only does it seem like computer code, but it's a specific kind of computer code that was created in 1947, and is still in wide use today. 
    And the kicker to all this is I haven't even gotten to the science of anarchy yet.

    2. Scientists don't generally tell people to believe what they say just because they told you so. They would be the first to encourage others to look for themselves. They would encourage people to question everything, but it seems so many people now take that as, don't believe anything. Society is hooked on conspiracies. Some people on here actually believe that the sky is a giant television and everything we see on it was put there by the illuminati. It can be easily demonstrated that that's false, but they won't listen because they "question everything". I don't actually think David Hume was a valid philosopher, he was just a personality. A modern equivalent would be Gore Vidal, or John Stewart. Hume didn't demonstrate how objective reasoning was wrong, he just said, prove it's right, and he felt satisfied with just that. He didn't create the two kinds of knowledge that you talked about, those were philosophical classics. They go back to the Greeks. Hume was just having fun with philosophical dilemmas, but the dilemma of idolizing personalities, and binging on the latest conspiracy is becoming increasingly less fun. The US has a conspiracy personality for it's President now. Mehhhhh!

    I don't think anybody actually believes the sun will rise tomorrow because it rose today, and rose the day before. Saturn could throw Earth off its rotation which will send it hurtling into space, which in turn will cause the sun not to rise ever again. If that doesn't happen, eventually the sun will burn out. The idea that something will happen in the future because it happened in the past really only applies to the timeframe of a lifetime. Or the timeframe of the existence of a species, or the existence of a solar system. hitler believed the Arian race would rule over the entire earth, which would reign in 1000 years of utopia on earth. 1,000 years,  that's it. The Egyptian empire lasted for 3,000 years. We consider the first civilizations to have been created 12,000 years ago. Even the bible has a timeframe for how long heaven will exist, and it's not actually forever. I don't think anybody actually believes in forever. Some scientists believe the universe will and probably already is collapsing in on itself. When people believe the sun will rise tomorrow because it did everyday in the past, therefore it always will in the future, they're probably correct. At least within the timeframe of their life they are.


  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @piloteer

    Thank you for a thought provoking response , I want to give it a bit of thought and I shall get back to you real soon
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @piloteer


    You say ..... First, I'd like to point out that the idea of "locality" is being dismantled as we speak. Ever since non-locality has been proposed, nobody has been able to refute it, including Einstein (He tried his hardest, but he eventually conceded to Niels Bohr). In the 70s, it was tested, and the results were considered highly plausible that non-locality is the true nature of the universe. The jury is still out on all this, but it seems that not all actions are just reactions of earlier actions. Some may feel uneasy to realize that the universe is not planned, or has any kind of natural order. It's all anarchy. But some may take comfort knowing that their life is not predetermined and free will does exist. I also like to point that out when people try to argue that free will is an illusion (@MayCaesear). As far as I'm concerned, if you wanna prove predeterminism is the true nature of the universe, you need to refute non-locality, or you need to go the long way around and refute the validity of math and science.


    My reply ......Interesting piece , out of interest I was doing some research on the topic and came across this on a science blog called Live Science .......



    But, as usual, there are a couple of clever paradigms that get around it all, each of which are equally mind-blowing.  In one, our old friend the “Many Worlds” theory, zillions of parallel universes are spawned every second, which account for the seeming non-locality of reality.  In the other, “history plays itself out not in the three-dimensional spacetime of special relativity but rather this gigantic and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow emerges.”

    I have no problem explaining all of these ideas via programmed reality.

    Special Relativity has to do with our senses, not with reality.  True simultaneity is possible because our reality is an illusion.  And there is no speed limit in the truer underlying construct.  So particles have no problem being entangled.

    Many Worlds can be implemented by multiple instances of reality processes.  Anyone familiar with computing can appreciate how instances of programs can be “forked” (in Unix parlance) or “spawned” (Windows, VMS, etc.).  You’ve probably even seen it on your buggy Windows PC, when instances of browsers keep popping up like crazy and you can’t kill the tasks fast enough and end up either doing a hard shutdown or waiting until the little bastard blue-screens.  Well, if the universe is just run by a program, why can’t the program fork itself whenever it needs to, explaining all of the mysteries of QM that can’t be explained by wave functions.

    And then there is “configuration space.”  Nothing more complex than multiple instances of the reality program running, with the conscious entity having the ability to move between them, experiencing reality and all the experimental mysteries of Quantum Mechanics.

    Hey physicists – get your heads out of the physics books and start thinking about computer science!

    You say .......I understand your qualms with rigid indoctrination, but I have two problems with that point of view.

    1. Science (especially modern science) is far from rigid. The science of anarchy is very interesting and even a little unnerving. 

    2. There seems to also be a knee jerk reaction to recklessly reject any objective evidence simply for the sake of rejecting it. 


    My reply ....I only ever use the term Indoctrination reallyswhen it come to that which cannot or should not  be questioned which traditionally was the religious or deeply politicalized type  , which is something I would  never accuse science of .


    Humes basic argument is not irrational as he is stating what we have observed so far gives us no clue as to what will happen in the future, we have no justification for believing these things , I do believe the sun will rise tomorrow I just cannot help myself accepting such , but realistically I shouldn’t believe as it’s irrational to do so 


    You say ......1. Even the very foundational pillar of what drove the scientific revolution is being turned upside down. The idea of a materialistic universe is slowly being washed away, and being replaced by the idea of an idealistic universe. Idealism (in physics) is the idea that our universe can be influenced or even manipulated based on how WE see or understand it. Materialism stipulates that energy can't be created or destroyed, but the big bang theory poked the first hole in the materialistic point of view by showing ALL energy was created, and it all happened in the same moment. Also non-locality suggests that every thing that exists in the universe is influenced by every other thing in the universe (that's idealistic, not materialistic). The double slit experiment suggests that certain types of matter may know when it's being observed and will act differently because of that (look it up. It's bonkers). That same experiment also suggests that we can influence the past. Dr. James Gates (theoretical physicist) always wondered why we are taught that the smallest thing is an atom. But right after we're told that, we are taught what an atom is made up of. If an atom is made up of other smaller things, then obviously those things are smaller than an atom, so an atom isn't the smallest thing. That made him wonder what the smallest thing actually is. What's the smallest thing that can be considered a thing, without being made up of other things? What he found may make some people want to pull their teeth out of their face. He found that everything that can be considered a thing is made up of ones and zeros. This isn't backwoods science, he's a renowned physicist. When Neil Degrass Tyson pointed out that it's like computer code, he answered, "not only does it seem like computer code, but it's a specific kind of computer code that was created in 1947, and is still in wide use today. 

    And the kicker to all this is I haven't even gotten to the science of anarchy yet.

    2. Scientists don't generally tell people to believe what they say just because they told you so. They would be the first to encourage others to look for themselves. They would encourage people to question everything, but it seems so many people now take that as, don't believe anything. Society is hooked on conspiracies. Some people on here actually believe that the sky is a giant television and everything we see on it was put there by the illuminati. It can be easily demonstrated that that's false, but they won't listen because they "question everything". I don't actually think David Hume was a valid philosopher, he was just a personality. A modern equivalent would be Gore Vidal, or John Stewart. Hume didn't demonstrate how objective reasoning was wrong, he just said, prove it's right, and he felt satisfied with just that. He didn't create the two kinds of knowledge that you talked about, those were philosophical classics. They go back to the Greeks. Hume was just having fun with philosophical dilemmas, but the dilemma of idolizing personalities, and binging on the latest conspiracy is becoming increasingly less fun. The US has a conspiracy personality for it's President now. Mehhhhh!

    I don't think anybody actually believes the sun will rise tomorrow because it rose today, and rose the day before. Saturn could throw Earth off its rotation which will send it hurtling into space, which in turn will cause the sun not to rise ever again. If that doesn't happen, eventually the sun will burn out. The idea that something will happen in the future because it happened in the past really only applies to the timeframe of a lifetime. Or the timeframe of the existence of a species, or the existence of a solar system. hitler believed the Arian race would rule over the entire earth, which would reign in 1000 years of utopia on earth. 1,000 years,  that's it. The Egyptian empire lasted for 3,000 years. We consider the first civilizations to have been created 12,000 years ago. Even the bible has a timeframe for how long heaven will exist, and it's not actually forever. I don't think anybody actually believes in forever. Some scientists believe the universe will and probably already is collapsing in on itself. When people believe the sun will rise tomorrow because it did everyday in the past, therefore it always will in the future, they're probably correct. At least within the timeframe of their life they are.


    My reply .....A lot to take in and analyse in this interesting piece and thank you for it.


    Regards free will I like philosopher Galen Strawson basic free will argument as in ........


    (1) Interested in free action, we are particularly interested in actions that are performed for a reason (as opposed to 'reflex' actions or mindlessly habitual actions).

    (2) When one acts for a reason, what one does is a function of how one is, mentally speaking. (It is also a function of one's height, one's strength, one's place and time, and so on. But the mental factors are crucial when moral responsibility is in question.)

    (3) So if one is to be truly responsible for how one acts, one must be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking—at least in certain respects.

    (4) But to be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects, one must have brought it about that one is the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects. And it is not merely that one must have caused oneself to be the way one is, mentally speaking. One must have consciously and explicitly chosen to be the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects, and one must have succeeded in bringing it about that one is that way.

    (5) But one cannot really be said to choose, in a conscious, reasoned, fashion, to be the way one is mentally speaking, in any respect at all, unless one already exists, mentally speaking, already equipped with some principles of choice, 'P1'—preferences, values, pro-attitudes, ideals—in the light of which one chooses how to be.

    (6) But then to be truly responsible, on account of having chosen to be the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects, one must be truly responsible for one's having the principles of choice P1 in the light of which one chose how to be.

    (7) But for this to be so one must have chosen P1, in a reasoned, conscious, intentional fashion.

    (8) But for this, i.e. (7), to be so one must already have had some principles of choice P2, in the light of which one chose Pl.

    (9) And so on. Here we are setting out on a regress that we cannot stop. True self-determination is impossible because it requires the actual completion of an infinite series of choices of principles of choice.'

    (10) So true moral responsibility is impossible, because it requires true self-determination, as noted in (3).


    I would be interested in your thoughts on this 

    piloteerPlaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    @Dee

    Gimme a little time on this. It's a lot to take in. Interesting none the less though.
    Dee
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    @Dee

    Sorry, give me a little more time here, I'm trying to break down and smash the many worlds theory. I think I can pull it off though.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    edited July 11
    @Dee

     I think we could generalize the question as: "Why do we think it is logical to reason out the future by considering the past?" 

     The answer is: That is what logic is. We either understand things by learning the rules they abide, or by observing how things operate to reason out the rules by ourselves. If such rules do not exist, then we will have no way of understanding that concept. We look for patterns, it is how we function.

     So, you are asking why logic works the way it does and you are trying to find an answer to this question that is logical. This is why it gets so paradoxical. You cannot get an understanding of logic within logic. 

    ---

     BUT, I do agree that we might just be seeing patterns that are not actually there. The reason behind why the universe seems consistent to us might just be that we are creating that pattern ourselves. If you ever have time to waste, I suggest you listen to this talk: 
    http://ludix.com/moriarty/psalm46.html
     It is about how you will start to see patterns that are not really there if you look into something(anything) deeply enough. This pattern seeking mechanism seems to have been built inside of us. No matter how we look at the world, we see patterns. Everything seems to be related:

     "There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized. Unity and complementarity constitute reality." -Werner Heisenberg

     " (...) All the efforts of the intellectual kinds, are to see the connections of the hierarchies, to connect beauty to history, to connect history to man's psychology, the man's psychology to the working of the brain, the brain to the neural impulse, the neural impulse to the chemistry and so forth, up and down, both ways." - Richard Feynman

     Now, this pattern may as well exist. I do not think we have any way of knowing that for sure. I am only saying that there is a possibility for it to not be there at all. But, ironically, I reached that result by pattern-seeking. 
     
     
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @piloteer

    No hurry my friend in your own time 
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @AlexOland


    You say ....... I think we could generalize the question as: "Why do we think it is logical to reason out the future by considering the past?" 


     The answer is: That is what logic is. We either understand things by learning the rules they abide, or by observing how things operate to reason out the rules by ourselves. If such rules do not exist, then we will have no way of understanding that concept. We look for patterns, it is how we function.


    My reply .....Yes I recognise all this and I like Hume do expect the sun will indeed rise but like Hume I agree we cannot help but reason inductively because we have been conditioned to regularity which we expect to continue.

    The whole argument is unacceptably circular in effect we are saying  induction has  worked up to now and therefore will continue to do so In the future.Hume thought this irrational I cannot see a flaw in his reasoning to be honest.


    Incidentally there is still no consensus about whether Hume is right or wrong.




     You say .....BUT, I do agree that we might just be seeing patterns that are not actually there. The reason behind why the universe seems consistent to us might just be that we are creating that pattern ourselves. If you ever have time to waste, I suggest you listen to this talk: 

    http://ludix.com/moriarty/psalm46.html

     It is about how you will start to see patterns that are not really there if you look into something(anything) deeply enough. This pattern seeking mechanism seems to have been built inside of us. No matter how we look at the world, we see patterns. Everything seems to be related:


     "There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized. Unity and complementarity constitute reality." -Werner Heisenberg


     " (...) All the efforts of the intellectual kinds, are to see the connections of the hierarchies, to connect beauty to history, to connect history to man's psychology, the man's psychology to the working of the brain, the brain to the neural impulse, the neural impulse to the chemistry and so forth, up and down, both ways." - Richard Feynman


     Now, this pattern may as well exist. I do not think we have any way of knowing that for sure. I am only saying that there is a possibility for it to not be there at all. But, ironically, I reached that result by pattern-seeking


    My reply .....Very interesting piece and I thank you for it

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    @Dee

    "I agree we cannot help but reason inductively because we have been conditioned to regularity which we expect to continue.

    The whole argument is unacceptably circular in effect we are saying  induction has  worked up to now and therefore will continue to do so In the future.Hume thought this irrational I cannot see a flaw in his reasoning to be honest. "


     Sorry, I think I did not state myself very clearly. I am saying that the essence of inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning is the same. They both function on patterns: 

    - Deductive reasoning is based on realizing the patterns that every single "thing" has. If A is B, and C is A; then C must also be B. Now, I want you to stop and think for a second. Why is this true? Or, in your own words, "why expect this logic to work tomorrow?". 

    - Inductive reasoning is based on realizing the patterns of certain "things". 


     Let's imagine your entire existence consists of watching a 2D presentation screen. There is nothing else. On that screen, you see that certain colors pop up at random intervals. But you realize that when "blue" appears, "green" always follows. Without exception. Here, inductive reasoning would be to think that when blue appears, green will indeed follow. But did you catch how we gave birth to deductive reasoning by our own perception of the screen? Notice how we immediately categorized everything that pops up as "color"? Why did we not realize them as entirely independant things? What makes "blue" , "green" , "red" share something? The answer is us. We saw a pattern between them. Then we described the things that share that pattern as "color". So just like how the sun might not rise tomorrow, red might suddenly stop being a color tomorrow. It is just a matter of which pattern we fail to see in the future.


     The whole argument is circular? Well, that is because logic is logically circular. How can we know logic is true except by logic? 

  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @AlexOland

    You say ......Well, that is because logic is logically circular. How can we know logic is true except by logic? 


    My reply .....Well let’s take valid mathematical proofs they do not assume the proof in the conclusion , would you say they are circular?

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    @Dee

     Well let’s take valid mathematical proofs they do not assume the proof in the conclusion , would you say they are circular?

     By that "logic is logically circular" part, I was talking about the entirety of logic and not just inductive reasoning; sorry, I should have mentioned that. 

     The thing is, it gets paradoxical after this point. I cannot really comment on it more. I can just say that if we think logically, "logic" is actually circular by definition. Math is (somewhat) the formalization of certain logical ideas (or as some would argue, logic itself) so this applies to math as well. 
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @AlexOland

    Thanks for that Alex , I think we have exhausted the topic it was most interesting and I enjoyed the exchange 
    AlexOland
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch