Francois Tremblay
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 307
I've already eliminated emotions from that category. Emotions can be measured as a personal experience, and is hypothetically measurable by scientific means.
While the brain is fairly close to a black box at the moment, its workings are mostly certainly subject to scientific examiniation.
So are the details of the physiology of extinct creatures, even if current scientific knowledge cannot provide means to examine them - even if we actually learn them! They're still within the domain of science.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Since Occam or Ockham if you prefer is the titular head of this thread, you could, of course, also eliminate emotions from the entire argument by emulating his nominalism, and suggesting that emotions, since they are not entities, happen but do not, in the strictest sense, exist.
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
That was rather the point of including a smiley at the end.
I'd also like to point out that, if the universe is closed, then with a really, really, really good telescope it should be possible to observe light emitted by an Archaeopteryx. Of course it won't be due back here until ...hmmm.... 13.7 billion..... take away ......235 million ..ahhh. Well, you've got plenty of time to get your scope ready.
(This is a smiley, to show that I'm trying to be light-hearted and witty in a quietly thought-provoking kind of way)I guess. If you count measuring distance with a ruler that changes scale and units with time, I suppose it can be measured...
Emotions are relevant within a context. Later, gauging them is difficult as the circumstances change. Indeed you know relatively that you were happy or sad, and the approxiamtely effect it had on your life, but to really guage them effectively is impossible as they relate to context, which in itself varies.
Athon
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
The momentum of an electron the instant we know its position.
Yes, I know I'm more of a smart a** than a smart guy.
Francois Tremblay
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 307
Now I don't know much about QM, but I understand that particles small enough can only be understood as having group (wave) properties. So I would have to question the premise that the momentum of an electron is meaningful. But a physicist would be required to clarify this one.
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
It really was more of a joke than anything. I believe my arguement would fall under the fallacy of equivocation. You mean "something" in the sense of something tangible. A measurement isn't really tangible, its just a measurement. Of course, the electron can still be measured by position and threfore, still exists. Sorry for the confusion.
Francois Tremblay
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 307
Oh ok. I understand. Yes, I should have seen that before. Sorry for ruining the joke.
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
Eh, it was a bad joke anyway.
I'm still grappling with the question of definition, and I don't quite understand this one. Surely if you can prove a postulate without relying on an assumption, the assumption is irrelevant? Or are you simply saying that a proof that doesn't rely on an assumption is better then one that does?
Here is an example of what I think is the razor in action. Some people report that Uri Geller has bent a spoon without touching it. Three possible explanations (there may be others) -
(1) Geller can exert physical force purely by the action of his mind.
(2) The spoon was bent by an invisible being from another planet acting under Geller's control.
(3) Geller is a moderately skilled illusionist.
The assumptions required for #1 and #2 are highly unlikely, whereas the assumption required for #3 is quite likely - I know that illusionists exist (I've seen one or two). So, in the absence of further evidence, I say that #3 is true with a probability of X, X being close to 1.
This neither proves nor disproves anything; moreover, it is quite subjective. Nevertheless, isn't it what Ockham's razor proposes?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Not quite, I think, at least by the way I understand Ockham's original idea. I think it would go more like this. I have a ball, and I throw it across the room. The arc it describes is explained satisfactorily by a set of laws regarding motion. I need not, then, assume any other laws or hidden forces. But I think you need to have an adequate explanation before you discard the extraneous ones. The razor is not, at least in its original form, a tool for choosing between speculations simply on the basis of simplicity. In the case of spoon bending, I think you would need first to use the razor on a demonstration by someone other that Geller, such as Randi, demonstrating how the trick can be done without supernatural powers. Randi does this trick, and demonstrates that he can do it with only sleight of hand. One can then say "this feat can be performed with no supernatural powers by a magician, therefore when I see this feat performed by others, I can assume that no supernatural powers are involved."
That's exactly the Razor in action.
If you can prove what you need to prove without relying on a specific assumption, then there is no need to make that specific assumption, because it's irrelevant to your case.
It's not (as you suggested later) a question of comparative likelihood at all (although Bayes' theorem can be used to address that, in a much more rigourous fashion).
Uri Geller can bend spoons based on his skill as a magician and his claimed psychic powers
Randi can bend spoons based on his skill as a magician
Therefore, we can explain spoon-bending without regard to claimed psychic powers. This doesn't disprove Uri's powers, just renders them irrelevant. His spoon bending doesn't prove his powers, and not much does. If it's not necessary to assume his claimed powers, the Razor says we shouldn't.