[ExI] Fwd: A science-religious experience

[efc at disroot.org]

>       Apparently, the recorded cucko said some very threatening or confusing words!
>       Maybe the recording was a zen koan that confused the live cuckoo? ;)
> 
> It could be that it hears a frequency range outside the human range, and this
> component was not replicated by you (and you wouldn't even be aware it was
> missing), but that it was present in the book. (Just a possible theory).
> 
> I've known cats  who react strongly to recorded cat meows (in videos), and in
> a way that they wouldn't react if a human tried to fake the same meow.
> 
> Or perhaps the recorded sound was a cuckoo of the opposite sex, which captured
> his interest, while your imitation was too perfect and sounded too much like
> him. �� 

Haha... true! ;) Yes, you are right of course. Any number of theories could
explain it. I was just fascinated with the 1 to 1 match of playing the recording
and getting the cuckoo to stop. It felt as if I scared him or insulted him. ;)

I wonder if recording like this actually work for some species? But I guess
we'll have to find a biology mailinglist to find out, unless... it could be
argued that this is the first step to uplifting our dear friends! ;)

>       >       I also think science has been doing very well with discovering and proving
>       >       things. Based on a pragmatic idea of truth, as well as its prediction making
>       >       abilities, I'm perfectly comfortable to say that the world is "proven" and that
>       >       simulations, deities etc. will never be proven, and are, from an existence point of
>       >       view, nonsense.
>       >
>       > We have reached an impasse on this, which I believe is due to our different
>       > degrees of willingness to rely on deduction.
>
>       I think this is a key observation. Apparently this is an old topic and I was
>       surprised when I looked into your Nozick reference in the email to see that not
>       only did Nozick think deeply about the closest continuator, he also thought
>       deeply about why to reject the principle of deductive closure. It seems I have
>       more in common with Nozick than I first thought. I think I'll have to acquire
>       his Philosophical Explanations.
> 
> Hmm do you have a reference for what he said on deductive closure? I am not
> familiar with that part.

He writes about it in his book Philosophical Explanations, and there is also
this wikipedia page which is very anemic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

See section "Epistemic closure and skeptical arguments".

Reading up on the actual source (the book) is on my to do list, but I don't know
when I'll get to it.

>       >       > Basically every cosmologist who has attempted to answer this question comes to
>       >       > the conclusion that it can't be a coincidence. No one knows if it is right
>       >       > with certainty, but they're about as sure as it is possible to get as far as
>       >       > any scientific theory is concerned.
>       >
>       >       As far as I am concerned, only theory and no proof has been presented and most
>       >       likely will never be presented. Once it does... I'll revise my position.
>       >
>       > The proof is the empirical evidence that has been gathered which refutes the
>       > hypothesis of "A" (a single universe, not designed).
>       >
>       > What that leaves, is up to you to decide, but that is what the empirical
>       > evidence tells us: "not A."  
>
>       I think one might argue about the interpretation. I have found no empirical
>       proof of other universes.
> 
> I was not here claiming that there is. Only that we have empirical evidence
> against A.
> 
> Do you disagree with this?

I don't know. What is the evidence? It could very well be that you already
provided it and I lost in the the reply somewhere. If so I apologize. If not,
give me a link and I'll have a look.

>       But as stated above, our differences reharding the
>       principle of deductive closure is one of the very few things that between us.
>       Disregarding that, I think your deductions and ideas are well thought out, given
>       your terms and the definition of your terms.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Do you agree with logic at least? If A, B, and C are exhaustive (cover the
> full possibility space), then: "not A" ==> (B or C).

Yes, if we put on our "logic" glasses, regardless of what A, B and C is (that
can always be argued when it is used to reason about events in the physical
world) I think the the logic is sound.

Without now recalling the exact original text, the two things I am uncertain of
is A, B and C themselves, and the validity of infering from tangible results, to
non-tangible ones. But that's old ground.

> Here is an example: Some piece of matter in my position is (when at a certain
> pressure and temperature) either solid, liquid, or gas. If I tell you this
> matter is "not liquid", then you can conclude it must be (solid or gas).

Agreed!

> This is the extent to which I am applying logical deduction. It is, I think,
> basic, elementary, and uncontroversial.

Yes!

> Do you think otherwise?

No... and when it comes to empirically verifiable facts, there is definitely a
use case for logic as a tool.

Best regards, 
Daniel