No, unobservable means it cannot be observed. Unobservable things can have an impact.
Often times, through indirect observation we can detect the thing and make education hypothesis about what it is and how it works, but that doesn't make it "observed". It is still unobservable.
In fact, most of the cutting edge work in physics deals entirely with the unobservable. Practical physics lags behind about 25-100 years in either proving or disproving parts of theoretical physics, because it takes time to come up with the technologies capable of detecting the things we think should be out there. Until then, they are unobservable.
That isn't what the word means.It does in the context of this discussion.
If you want me to I could expand it out then:
"If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?"
Strawberry fudge muffin, context slavery runs orange rampant sadness.
Words have meaning and we should adhere to them, discussions like these are hard enough without those meanings. You keep asserting your definition, but I'm telling you, your definition is wrong (and provably so). Instead of focusing on your definition of THAT word (which is wrong), pick a new word.
If your side of the conversation is reliant on an incorrect definition you had to invent, perhaps you should rethink your position.
Or, if I'm just not getting what you're trying to say, say it differently. IE: without the word that we can't agree on.
Alright I expanded the sentence out for your benefit:
If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?
Alright I expanded the sentence out for your benefit:
If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?
Does that mean it, logically, does not exist: No.
Does that meant that it probably doesn't exist: Yes. There are more things imagined than actual, if something is merely imagined without being evidenced it is highly likely that it doesn't exist.
Does that mean that it may as well not exist: Yes.
Depends on your definition of exist.
Do you have an example?
BNW was kind enough to accept my stricter definition of unobservability which I posted on page 15 which is:
"Unobservable obviously means having no impact on the observable universe as anything that has an impact on the observable universe is observable through that impact."
I've been very clear about what I mean IronTruth. But in any case. Like I said since this matters very much to you I will go ahead and use the entire definition.
Does that meant that it probably doesn't exist: Yes. There are more things imagined than actual, if something is merely imagined without being evidenced it is highly likely that it doesn't exist.
I'm always a little bit leery when people start talking about probabilities. I mean how do you get a percentage chance without experimentation? What's the likelihood chance that you're talking about BNW? 51%, 95%?
Alright I expanded the sentence out for your benefit:
If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?
Does that mean it, logically, does not exist: No.
Does that meant that it probably doesn't exist: Yes. There are more things imagined than actual, if something is merely imagined without being evidenced it is highly likely that it doesn't exist.
Does that mean that it may as well not exist: Yes.
Just to add:
Does that mean that it, empirically, does not exist? No evidence has ever been produced of an undetectable object that nevertheless exists.
Based on this, Occam's razor states that such objects do not exist.
I don't care how clear you are about your made-up definition. It's still made-up.
Depends on your definition of exist.
I think the first definition from dictionary.com is sufficient. "To have actual being"
Does that meant that it probably doesn't exist: Yes. There are more things imagined than actual, if something is merely imagined without being evidenced it is highly likely that it doesn't exist.I'm always a little bit leery when people start talking about probabilities. I mean how do you get a percentage chance without experimentation?
Bayesian reasoning. Probabilities can also be interpreted as confidence levels.
Bayesian reasoning. Probabilities can also be interpreted as confidence levels.
Alright, how does Bayesian Inference apply to the question:
If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?
Based on this, Occam's razor states that such objects do not exist.
But Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.
It's nice, but it's hardly conclusive.
Bayesian reasoning. Probabilities can also be interpreted as confidence levels.
Alright, how does Bayesian Inference apply to the question:
If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?
We know that the probability of a nonexistent object having no impact on the observable universe is extremely high (an operational definition of 100%). We have no evidence of an existing object having no impact on the observable universe -- you can either regard this as strong evidence against this event (near zero), or you can regard this as complete ignorance.
Run the numbers, and you find that the probability of an unobservable object existing is extremely low --- how low depends on how close to 100% confidence you have that nonexistent objects don't affect the real world.
I'm always a little bit leery when people start talking about probabilities.
I'm always leery when people try to use inductive logic. You see i was bitten by a radioactive philosopher once...
Nah, seriously. It just doesn't work.
I mean how do you get a percentage chance without experimentation? What's the likelihood chance that you're talking about BNW? 51%, 95%?
How many more things are imagined than real?
You want odds on it? .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000001%. mostly because i got bored hitting the zero button.If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?
Baysean logic suggests that any particular something having no impact on the observable universe is highly unlikely to exist, because lots of something are imagined so the likelyhood of imagining something right are incredibly low.
Based on this, Occam's razor states that such objects do not exist.But Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.
It's nice, but it's hardly conclusive.
Which is why it's not a logical entailment, but a pretty dispositive empirical demonstration.
Orfamay Quest: I read up on Bayeseian Statistics and... man I don't think that it applies to this discussion at all.
Its power comes from having a possibly vague starting point of probability and then adjusting based on new data. It's not useful when we're talking about things that, by definition, can have no new data. (Because we're talking about unobservable... oh wait sorry IronTruth... we're talking about things that have no impact on the observable universe)
Basically for Bayesian statistics: "probability is orderly opinion, and that inference from data is nothing other than the revision of such opinion in the light of relevant new information."
There's no data, and no relevant new information when speaking about something which has no impact on the observable universe.
@IronTruth
I've never said that science and religion are the same.
My main contention with some in that thread (particularly with BigNorseWolf) appears to be my conviction that "Science is not the be-all and end-all of human knowledge".
That conviction stands apart from my assesment of the existence or the non-existence of the afterlife.
I've brought up religion in this thread to show - with mixed success - that there's a kind of knowledge which is not scientific.
There's knowledge from the heart, knowledge from the soul and knowledge of the mind. We are not whole without all these types of knowing.
How do you know that someone loves you ?
That knowledge has nothing to do with scientific knowledge.
But if you're not capable of knowing, within your heart, that you're loved, by someone, during your earthy time, you're gonna live a pretty miserable life. And you won't be saved by your reason, nor by your logic.
How can you be sure that you're loved by exercising the scientific method ? You can't.
Do you want to establish some protocol and do some measurement of the love someone has for you ? If you want it, you're foolish, and if you do it there's a good chance that love will depart away from you, killed by your dry reason.
Orfamay Quest: I read up on Bayeseian Statistics and... man I don't think that it applies to this discussion at all.
Well, you're wrong, again. Do the math.
Bayesian reasoning. Probabilities can also be interpreted as confidence levels.
Alright, how does Bayesian Inference apply to the question:
If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?
You're looking at this the wrong way (at least to understand my and I think others' perspective in this thread).
If something doesn't impact the observable universe, it may well exist. But what are the odds of somebody guessing correctly that it does? That depends on how dense the things that exist are in the space of things that you could imagine (feel free to narrow that down to specific sub-categories if you like). It also depends on how much wiggle room you allow (e.g. if you described an RPG called Pathseeker to your friend it would be pretty uncharitable to say it doesn't exist since something does exist within a reasonable margin of error of that thing).
Why do we resort to this probabilistic model? Because without any way to observe it, anyone stating it exists also has to be guessing. Even interacting with human brain activity is interacting with the observable universe.
So things that by your definition are "unobservable" could very well matter. But because that thing's unobservability means it can't have influenced me being aware of it, there's very little chance that I'll conceive of the right thing even if it does exist. So for the purposes of how I'll live my life, that thing might as well not exist.
Well, you're wrong, again. Do the math.
The math is a statistical starting point of assumptions with no possibility of new information.
Plus this: "you can either regard this as strong evidence against this event" sounds wrong.
Are you saying absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
In other words: there's no good reason to think that those who disagree with the fundamentals of your world view are ipso facto dishonest, dumb, illogical or irrational.
During the Inquisition, such people who disagreed with the Revelation of Christ and the tenets of the Christian faith - the only world view admissible by the powers that be at the time - were burned at the stake.
The english pilgrims even fled their old country to have the freedom to think as they wanted.
So people will disagree with you in any way that they deem fit, and there's nothing you can do about it, whether you like it or not.
You should check your history.
The Separatists came to the New World so they could burn people at the stake for violating what they saw as the true word of God. They didn't come here in order to establish a place of religious freedom, they came to establish a place for their religion and violently excluded others.
The Massachusetts colony was a religiously authoritarian place and had much more in common with the Inquisition than you give them credit. For example, they executed Quakers.
It's a frequently mistaken belief that when the Pilgrims settled New England that they were fleeing England's religious intolerance. It is more accurate to state that they were fleeing Holland, because their children had begun to reject the Calvinism of their parents BECAUSE of Holland's relatively religious free society.
Plus this: "you can either regard this as strong evidence against this event" sounds wrong.
Are you saying absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
I think i see the disconnect. You're trying to insist on using inductive reasoning only.
Does that mean it, logically, does not exist: No.<--- inductive reasoning.
Does that meant that it probably doesn't exist: Yes. There are more things imagined than actual, if something is merely imagined without being evidenced it is highly likely that it doesn't exist.<--- Bayesian reasoning.
Does that mean that it may as well not exist: Yes.<---state work logic
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
In the Bayesian framework, it is. And in real-life as well. I refer you to Holmes' "dog that did not bark in the night."
Or, less sensationally, if there are no signs of forced entry ("absence of evidence") the police will normally proceed along the assumption that it was an inside job.
In the interest of bringing things down to more reasonable temperatures, lets try to condense things a bit.
The thread posits the question of an afterlife.
Given that it's not a zipcode that anyone can point to on Google Maps, this is more of a survey question as to how each person addresses the question for themselves, rather than an answer we can demonstrate for others.
For myself, I'm an Ex-Catholic, now pretty much an atheist. I no longer moderate my behavior based on expected rewards or punishments in a post bodily existence, but rather by my decision to define myself by the impact i make on the world and people around me.
It means that I treasure the people that I care about that much more because when they're gone, they're gone forever, that I can't absolve myself of neglecting them in life as I will get no further chance to make up for it afterward. This life is that much more meaningful because that is all there is.
There are painful consequences to this belief and I can understand why some would shirk for it. I can't console the people who grieve over a loved one with platitudes such as "They've gone to a better place." Or "You'll see them in Heaven.". Many will find this viewpoint too bleak to accept, and I don't blame them for that, nor will I enforce my viewpoint on them.
Some decisions should be left for people to make on their own. And I will do so. On the other hand, I will answer to the best of my ability any who ask about how I feel and why. And I will also help people clarify their own thoughts on the matter. Beyond that, I don't think there's much we can do for each other on this question.
Depends on your definition of exist.I think the first definition from dictionary.com is sufficient. "To have actual being"
and what does "to have actual being" mean?
There’s a pragmatic way to make up your mind about the afterlife.
If you want to probe the question « Is there an afterlife ? »:
- read books about it: the scientific, philosophical, and spiritual litterature.
- meet with and hang around people who have a link with the afterlife: mediums, witch doctors, spiritualists, ancestor cults worshippers, etc.
- See how they connect to the afterlife. Try to keep an open mind.Then, having acquired all that knowledge, experiment for yourself the connection to the afterlife (with no drugs* ; no unsafe practices or people ; no sex with the wise man/woman ; no depletion of your financial resources ; no bodily harm whatsoever to yourself, or to others, and neither to small animals, because… duh !)
Then you will be able to answer the question for yourself.
In my first post noting a lack of faith in the afterlife, I figured that quoting the Venerable Bede in the original would head any "go do the research" advice off at the pass...
@Hama: I'm the first to agree that the Christian church hasn't always been what it should be - although even saying "Christian Church" is a bit of a misnomer, since it's hardly monolithic and hasn't been for quite some time. There's also the fact that a lot of people outside of the church never hear about the immense amount of charity work that's done all over the world. The Catholic Church spends about roughly $4.7 billion annually on direct charity. They also spend around $98.6 billion on health care and $48.8 billion on education, significant chunks of which are used to provide free or low-cost services to those in need as part of a non-profit setup. And that's just the Catholic church, not even counting other major denominations.
To repeat myself, I'm the first to agree that they've had their problems over time - and, indeed, in some areas still do. But churches also do a tremendous amount of good in the world, often unnoticed except by those who benefit from it, and I feel like that should be taken into account when evaluating them as "positive" or "negative".
I think i see the disconnect. You're trying to insist on using inductive reasoning only.
It's deductive reasoning not inductive reasoning. It proceeds from general premises to a specific conclusion.
The question again:
If something has no impact on the observable universe. Does that mean it does not exist?
General premises
1. Let A be the set of things that have no impact on the observable universe.
2. Let B be the set of things that do not exist.
3. Set B is trivially a subset of Set A.
4. We have no way to determine (scientifically or otherwise) if Set A is also a subset of Set B (That is to say they're equal)
Therefore just because something is in Set A we cannot conclude that they are also in Set B.
I think all the premises are sound enough and I think the conclusion is solid also. Also I don't think anybody here is disputing this sequence of logic.
I think it's also established that science has no interest in the set of things that have no impact on the observable universe.
Does that meant that it probably doesn't exist: Yes. There are more things imagined than actual, if something is merely imagined without being evidenced it is highly likely that it doesn't exist.<--- Bayesian reasoning.
Now we're moving on to a different question. Which is
If something has no impact on the observable universe. What is the probability that it exists?
First I don't see you're introducing a Set C here. That is set of things that are imagined. It's a different definition that a Set of things that have no impact on the observable universe.
The question:
If something is imagined. What is the probability that it exists?
Is different from the question:
If something has no impact on the observable universe. What is the probability that it exists?
As the definition of "imagined" is not the same as the definition of "no impact on the observable universe"
Secondly the power of Bayesian reasoning comes from being able to update an initial premise of probability based on new evidence. Or more formally:
“Bayesian statistics is a mathematical procedure that applies probabilities to statistical problems. It provides people the tools to update their beliefs in the evidence of new data.”
In this case there is no possibility of new evidence or new data.