Is My Hypothesis Valid???

As physicist Lawrence Krauss commented: ""I might say one should call it the string hypothesis, because it's unfair to evolutionary theory for us to call it string theory."The reason it's called "string theory", I believe, is that it's a theory in the mathematical sense --- people can derive conclusions logically from a set of axioms.In the scientific sense it's barely even a hypothesis, since it resists translation into testable predictions.

You continue to accuse me of lies, misrepresentation and ineptitude. You continue to be ambiguous and evasive regarding the true nature of subjective evidence. You continue to conflate those concepts which can be empirically evidenced with those which cannot. You continue to refuse to engage me in debate. It is time to post a final refutation to your Perceptions of Reality pet project. So we see that the key claim that you make for your "Perceptions of Reality" thesis (indeed its raison d'etre) is that it allows us to examine the evidential validity of concepts which the empirical methods of science are unable to explore. This premise is false. In the case of inherently non-empirical concepts there is no possibility that the "evidence" in question can possibly be empirical and objective. Thus for those concepts which your thesis was specifically setup to consider, namely those unavailable to scientific investigation, the first premise of your theory is indisputably false. This premise is also false. In the case of inherently non-empirical concepts there is no possibility that the "evidence" in question can possibly be anything but "wholly subjective". Thus for those concepts which your thesis was specifically setup to consider, namely those unavailable to scientific investigation, the second premise of your theory is also indisputably false. Given that both your stated premises were false it is hardly surprising that your conclusion is also false. Where the concepts in question are inherently non-empirical in nature there is indeed a rational and logical distinction between what can be validly and objectively evidenced and what cannot. Where the concepts under consideration meet the criteria of being unavailable to scientific empirical investigation, i.e. the very concepts that you set out to explore, both your premises and your conclusion are therefore logically and indisputably false. Except that in the case of inherently non-empirical concepts, those concepts that your thesis specifically set out to explore, there is no possibility that such experiences are anything but wholly subjective. Thus they can never be considered to be "objective evidence of reality". No matter how many such claims are made or how many "experiences" are considered. Wholly subjective experiences, which experiences of the inherently non-empirical logically must be, can never be considered to be "objective" in any sense whatsoever. Thus those concepts which are beyond the ability of the empirical methods of science to explore can never be considered to be "evidenced" in any sense at all. Well you have now.And I didn't even need to mention the innate contradiction in your theory as exposed here Message 145.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

On one side we have it black and white; that something is either empirically evidenced or it is imagined: And: On the other side we have a grey area: Now, I don’t see why is true that they remain identical.I can imagine hearing something, I can involuntarily hear something, two of us alone can hear something, a whole city can hear something, or it’s something that we have all heard, etc.At what point does something become validated and no longer be imaginary? If by inherently non-empirical concepts you mean that there is no possibility that the "evidence" in question can possibly be objective, then you’re just stating a tautology.But if you’re talking about the same thing as Stile, where things become empirical as they become validated, then why is there no room for things that have not been validated yet but aren’t imaginary nor wholly subjective?If I hear a noise, I can tell if I’ve imagined it or not (although I could be wrong if I’m going crazy). If two of us hear it, then it’s not in my head alone. As more and more people have heard something, then we have more confidence that it is empirical, right? Isn’t that how you’re using the word?I don’t agree that things are imaginary until they become empirical and that’s not how I experience things. I can pretty much tell what’s real or not by myself. Sometimes, it’s not so easy to tell though. If other people have the same experience, then I can be more confident that it was real. But just because nobody else heard it doesn’t tell me that I imagined it. I may not be so sure, but I do have confidence in my sanity and my ability to tell reality from imagination. So if I hear a noise by myself, I must conclude that I imagined it? Why? I think you have it backwards. I don’t think that the key claim is there to allow for non-empirical concepts, I think that the experiences of non-empirical concepts are the reason that the key claim is there.

In which case RAZD is taking an inherently and demonstrably flawed "top down" approach to evidence. As discussed here Message 178If something is inherently non-empirical in nature then it cannot be detected empirically.Do you agree or disagree with this statement?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That's certainly the interesting point, isn't it? What is the cut-off point? The cut-off point for what, though? Sufficient validation for what?Any different answer for that will provide us with different cut-off points.The fact that we are incapable of identifying "actual, true, absolute" reality means that there is no cut-off point to reach that level because we don't know where that level is.If my purpose is to find food for others, my cut-off point is having food in my hands and other's can see, touch and taste.If my purpose is to have others agree with me, my cut-off point is as loose as a silver-tongue.For this argument, I'd assume our purpose is to see if something is a part of the shared-reality we seem to exist within. Again, we have a strange fork in the road.A scientist would only agree that something is "part of this reality" if it can be thoroughly tested and verified.
Someone with less motivation would agree that something is "part of this reality" as long as they see it with their own eyes.Who's right? We don't exactly have a book from above to tell us For me, if the question is "does this actually exist?", I first remember that we can't answer that in the absolute sense anyway because such knowledge is currently beyond us. So I go for the next best thing... the standards of science. My cut-off point is "the highest cut-off point I know of." Why should we settle for anything less? I don't like this system, I don't think it accurately shows the way things are, or even should be. I will give my thoughts of how things break down, and my reasoning:For me, it is more of a vast ocean of "unknown." This vast ocean is occupied by an island of "imaginary." That is, when something in the unknown is identified as being imaginary, it just slides from the same level of the ocean right onto the island, a simple adjustment. Perhaps it's not so much an island as a giant, pangea-type land mass... but the size of it is pretty irrelevent.Anyway, the "spectrum" part of it (for me) only exists in the "validated" area. That is, we don't have grades of imaginary. It's either imaginary or unknown. But I certainly do agree that we have grades of validation. In my picture, "validated" would be equivalent to "feet above sea-level". (For the sake of my picture, the island-of-imagination is an ironically flat and boring land where everything is level at 0 feet above sea level). A short list to finish the picture (but not meant to be exhaustive):5,000 feet above sea level - two people sharing the same experience at the same time
6,000 feet above sea level - many people sharing the same experience at the same time
35,000 feet above sea level - two people confirming the same experience in independent ways
45,000 feet above sea level - many different people confirming the same experience in many different ways
50,000 feet above sea level - many different people continually confirming the same experience in many different ways while trying to disprove it (Science)
Heaven - "True, Absolute Reality"A few points that differ between my picture and your spectrum, and my thoughts about them:My "unknown" is equal to "imaginary"
-The one thing all parts of known-shared-experience (colloquial reality) have in common is that they have ALL been verified, whether through curious searching explorers and scientists or through sheer force of practicality.
-There is an infinite number of unknown things, they seem to have A LOT in common with imaginary things
-the only thing that will ever differentiate an "unknown" from an "imaginary" is if it becomes validated... at which point it is "lifted up into the known areas of knowledge", to stick with my pictureThe "spectrum" between imaginary to validated is not gradual.
-I think there's a big jump, a big gap that's suddenly crossed when something begins to be validated. Imagination and unknown should be far from being close to "real" until there is something to indicate it's validity.
-There are things that might hint to something being validated that, upon closer inspection, have a high-chance of still being imaginary. Single person experiences to mob-mentality-experiences come to mind. (this should not be ignored when the purpose of the investigation is "to see if something exists")
-Things that are unknown are not "some closer to imagination" or "some closer to validated". To me, something is "unknown" or it has begun it's trek up the slopes of validation in which we can search for further testing. The spectrum isn't in the unknown, it is only in the levels of validation/confidence.If recorded human history has shown us anything, it has shown that we humans are critically susceptable to thinking things are real when in fact, we eventually learn that they are not. For me, when honesty is desired, time is available and importance level is high... I accept this fallible human condition and reverse the situation. When the stakes are high, I find it only prudent to assume unknown/imagination until validation can occur in the highest of degrees....I hope some of this further explains something useful. I must admit that I am at a loss to provide the topic at this point. What's the main question we're trying to answer? Or what's the main theme we're trying to explore?

I didn't mean for it to seem so cut-and-dry. I was just trying to keep it simple to focus on a more-important-at-the-time point (that there are two main groups).Hopefully my post #200 explained this part a little more in-depth.

Thanks for the kudos. I really like these discussions. I know that there are two different camps of "things" (imaginary and validated). And I know that there is also a varying spectrum of confidence-in-existing.One of the main issues in this forum (that I'm interested in, anyway) is gettingn such things clearly defined. Not only for my own thoughts, but clearly defined in such a way as to describe it in objective terms that can be shown to other people. The basic separation is easy to objectively show, the detailed and exact lines in the sand always prove to be more difficult. That has always seemed to escape me, but I'll keep trying

Hi Catholic Scientist, Exactly. What we have here is really the denial that what you alone hear may possibly be true. This is what struck me so strange early on in this debate: the absolute refusal to accept the uncertainty of some possibilities.Interestingly, we have a clue furnished in this post by Straggler on another thread:

quote:

---

My Grandafather on my mothers side was the only properly religious person in my family and I always enjoyed discussing these issues with him as a teenager.
When all was said and done his last resort argument to convince me of the error of my ways me was to suggest that unless I could be absolutely certain that God did not exist that I would be better off believing just in case he did. He was genuinely concerned that my place in the heaven in which he so believed was at risk because of my proclaimed disbelief.

---

As a result of this (likely long and repeated) debate young Straggler convinced himself (perhaps not consciously) that he was absolutely convinced. I expect that in many other ways this grandfather was a respected mentor, rather than the family lunatic, and thus the debate resulted in cognitive dissonance, resulting in the absolute conviction. Exactly, as has been already pointed out numerous times. But what Straggler really tries to imply is that anything that is not validated "empirical concepts necessarily becomes inherently non-empirical concepts - and what he is trying to do, is to exclude any and every kind of evidence of possibilities outside his convictions. Actually, he has it upside-down and backwards.Of course, to understand this properly you need to know that what Straggler calls my "key claim" is a misunderstanding, as you can see in his response.One "key" (if it is a "key") is that a unique single observation made one time by an aware and conscious person can be a possibility of reality. This is the beginning point for any type of concept that becomes an "empirical concept as well as for concepts that don't get validated, that don't get repeated enough to fit his definition of "empirical concepts and so it is the foundational starting point.A second "key" is that the most one can conclude from any unique single observation made one time by an aware and conscious person is that it is at best only a possibility of reality, and thus it could also be imaginary. You cannot tell from one experience.Consider this from Straggler:
Message 133

quote:

---

THE SITUATION
Person A has an experience that to them is indistinguishable from an experience of empirical reality.
Person A concludes that this experience is of a supernatural inherently non-empirical entity of some sort.
THE APPLICATION OF LOGIC
Something cannot be both simultaneously non-empirical and empirically experienced because this would be an inherent contradiction.

---

I've noted before that the conclusion is pre-built in by Straggler's construction, so he is begging the question, but the interesting thing is that he feels compelled to build these scenarios. This is followed by:

quote:

---

Thus claims of the supernatural are inherently unable to be objectively evidenced in any way at all that is superior to merely guessing.

---

So once again we see a buttressing for his absolute conviction in his arguments.And when I showed his logic to be flawed (which it still is, although Straggler cannot see it, and keeps referring to it and repeating it), this statement at the end of his reply is also instructive: Message 165

quote:

---

I put it to you that you are attempting to sneak in some form of non-empirical evidence under the cover of vagueness. So prove me wrong.

---

In other words, he is scared spitless that discussion along these lines will lead him to considering evidence outside his fencing that could contain the potential possibility of perhaps having to talk about the possibilities of god/s ... a concept that he has convinced himself, absolutely convinced himself, is not possible. Obviously it is as possible to observe reality through a unique single observation made one time by an aware and conscious person, otherwise "objective reality" would not exist - there would be no first experience. What we can be is uncertain that a unique single observation made one time by an aware and conscious person IS a possibility of reality, and that uncertainty can remain UNTIL it is validated by subsequent experiences.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks, Stile, Thus the cut-off is essentially a sliding scale, subjective decision, based in large part on how you individually conceive reality, and in part on the specific application of the cut-off at hand.If it is something that we personally have not experienced, but only have evidence of by second-hand sources we deem questionable, then our skepticism, if not outright disbelief, is likely to be high.If it is something that we personally have experienced, and especially if there is second-hand evidence from trusted sources, then our acceptance is highly likely, if not a foregone conclusion. Curiously, even scientists are known for making conclusions with "less motivation" when it is in areas outside their field of expertise. Because it is impractical for everyday use. If I need to wait for scientific validation of reality while driving, then I won't be able to drive anywhere. On the other hand, if I accept that my observations and other sensations are indeed reflections of reality, then I will avoid accidents, and have a high likelihood of arriving at my destination whole and sound. Then perhaps it would be more accurate to use "validated" and "unknown" - as not all unknowns will be imaginary (because some will become validated), but all imaginary experiences will be unknown (by others). I'd agree with that division. I'd suggest that validation by an independent external observation (an independent similar experience by another person - and excluding "mob-mentality-experiences") should be sufficient to start your ""spectrum" ... in the "validated" area" - one foot above sealevel. If I walk alone into a previously never entered hotel room, a room with a chair and a bed and a table, is my experience of the objects in that room significantly altered if there is a second person with me? That we can take evidence, observations of reality, and, with logic and our understanding of reality, derive valid hypothesis that are useful even if they are not yet validated.Thus if I enter a previously never entered hotel room, a room with a chair and a bed and a table, can I make certain conjectures about how I can interact with these objects, during my stay in the room, interactions that are possibly likely to be realized, or should I treat these perceptions as imagination and try to walk through the table?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi again Stile, Yes, and one of my interests is in how can we see and observe reality once we are outside the boundaries of science.Curiously, what I find, particularly in pursuing this discussion here, is that the actual scientific evidence of reality is but a small portion of the amount of validated experiences of reality. It forms more of a special category within "validated experiences" category, where the validation is tested and calibrated by experimentation and confirmed to conform to the specific scientific understanding of reality in question.On the Perceptions of Reality thread I concluded that the best method for finding possible perceptions of reality outside science was to find concepts that were held in common with other people.What we have here is an intermediate stage, of concepts involving experiences held in common with other people.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : abe end

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I agree that it can be flawed but not that it must be flawed. Not necessarily. Neither is that necessary.You’ve shown how the top down approach can be flawed, but you haven’t shown that it must be. You didn’t really answer me on what you mean by empirical, but I don’t agree that non-empirical has to be inherently unjustifiable. If I’m all alone and I hear a noise behind me, it not being empirical doesn’t mean that it doesn’t justify me turning and looking for what made it.And I don’t see how this leads to a contradiction as to what is evidence (Message 145 didn’t really explain much for me). You seem to be stuck in the black and white view that something is either empirical or imaginary but the discussion relies on the grey area in between. I don’t see how allowing for the grey area leads to a contradiction other than we can’t really draw the line between real and imaginary (but that seems acceptable). Of course I agree it’s a tautology.Do you agree with this statement?:If something is inherently a non-rock, then it cannot be a rock.

I'm replying to this message but the quotes are fromm Message 200. For one, it’s impractical for everyday use. And for two, it could be turning a blind eye to an entire aspect of reality and you would never even know it. But not all unknowns are imaginary But what about the shared experiences that have not been verified yet? Like what? But what about a singular private experience. If I hear something and don’t know what it was, that doesn’t mean that I imagined it. Assuming that it does is a huge flaw. I can understand assuming something isn’t real until it is validated as real, especially for second hand knowledge. But I also trust my own sanity and my ability to tell reality from my imagination. If you are sitting alone somewhere and you hear a noise that you don’t know where it came from, do you really assume that you must be imagining it and not turn to look and see what made the noise?

Hrm, I dunno. I don’t think that it’s that it cannot possible be true, it’s that he doesn’t take it as evidence.Which I don’t really believe. Let’s put him in a dark old scary haunted house and see if when he hears strange noises if he stands by his guns that those noises are not evidence of anything or if he comes running out scared It makes me think I’m misunderstanding him, because who in their right mind thinks that they cannot tell, and should not use as evidence, something that they have sensed themselves, even though it has not been verified. I think it’s fairly easy to tell if something is real or imagined. And when it is difficult, I turn to the guy next to me and ask: Did you hear that? If they say yes, then I’m pretty sure it wasn’t just all in my head. If I’m all alone, then I won’t be as confident but I don’t think I’m some bumbling moron who cannot distinguish what is real or not. No, he’s not saying that it cannot be a possibility, he’s saying that it cannot be evidence.And by that I think he means empirical evidence (although I’m not entirely sure what he means by ‘empirical’). Which he’s right that one experience cannot be considered empirical in the scientific sense, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t really happen, was imaginary, or just doesn’t mean squat. Again, if I’m all alone and hear something that I realize wasn’t just in my head, then I take that to be evidence of something out there making a noise. Just because I can’t verify it, and just because it isn’t empirical in the scientific sense, doesn’t meant that I can’t use what I heard to try to figure out what made the noise (thus making it evidence). So, it is evidence, it’s just not empirical evidence.At least that’s one distinction. And he seems to be saying that if it isn’t empirical evidence then it isn’t evidence at all, which I don’t agree with.

To both RAZD and CS (sorry about not sending you an email notification, CS):I think it's time we clear up specifically what sort of situation we're talking about.Each different experience depends on 2 main factors for deciding how much effort should be exerted in order to come to a reasonable conclusion:1. Familiarity Factor
This can range from the extremely familiar (friends, family, house, car... pretty much everything in day-to-day life) to the extremely new and/or "never observed."
Extremely familiar experiences require small to sometimes even no effort to reach a reasonable conclusion of their existence. Likely, the effort for concluding their existence has already been done by ourselves at somepoint, or at least by others who we trust because we have validated those people ourselves already.
Extremely new experinces (including those which have no currently validated observations) should reasonably expect a much greater amount of effort from our part in order to conclude whether or not they exist.2. Importance Factor
This can range from the extremely unimportant (every-day things for which we subjectively have little interest in) to the extremely important (our personal existence and that of our loved ones and such things).
Extremely unimportant consequences should not reasonably expect much effort in deciding their existence. Basically, we just don't care.
Extremely important consequences should expect much more effort when we are expected to judge related experiences. We should take the utmost care in verifying reality as well as possible when the consequences are grave.Which lead to: Time Factor
Obviously, if we are in a panic situation, we are going to make more assumptions than we normally would when trying to ascertain the existence of an experience.
The familiarity factor and importance factor can also impact our decision to spend more or less time on researching the validity of any specific experience.Both RAZD's and CS's latest posts to me seem to be focusing on the very familiar, extremely unimportant experiences. I think we can all agree that such things do not require much attention since they are simultaneously very likely real (familiar) and extremely boring (unimportant).I'm under the impression that this discussion is largely underway because of a general desire to explore the possibility of the existence for a deity (God, or otherwise).
It's fairly obvious to me that the existence for a deity is extremely unfamiliar to everyone on the planet since absolutely no observations have ever been verified.
It also seems to me that the existence for a deity is extremely important. Many people have devoted their entire lives (and possibly gambled their afterlife as well) to such deities.Am I mistaken? Are we really talking about mundane experiences like empty rooms and things that go bump in the night? I certainly agree that such things hardly require any effort at all to attempt verification. But I fail to see the relevance if we are, indeed, leading towards the possible existence of deities. Such experiences are diametrically oppossed. On one side we have the extremly familiar and unimportant. The other side is extremely new and life-changing. I do not understand how any amount of effort deemed "reasonable" for basic, every-day life experiences can in any way transfer into anything resembling "reasonable effort" for an experience that could (if true) provide the basis for a paradigm shift for the entire planet.If you would like to confirm that this latest round of questions and comments concerning every-day experience has nothing to do with eventually comparing to deity-related experiences, then I will go back and answer the questions as honestly as I can (even though I find the idea as boring and unimportant as the consequences around such experiences). However, given that we are talking about this on the EvC message board, and that these discussions have been sprouted from such threads as those concering IPUs and Gods... I find it difficult to see the relevence between these questions and comments and exploring the existence of a deity.

I don’t use that function so no problem. I thought we were talking about things that have not been scientifically verified but that we have experienced nonetheless. Sounds a lot like ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. And what happens when a very familiar and seemingly unimportant experience leads to an extraordinary claim? Or when something that is obviously real to you evidences something that is not scientifically verified?Take seeing a ghost for example. It’s easy to sit here and say that it couldn’t be a ghost because they haven’t been scientifically verified so the viewer must be mistaken. But when you, yourself, actually see it, and it is a very familiar and mundane seeming experience, are you really going to just convince yourself that you must be crazy because it hasn’t been verified? I think that in itself is crazy, or at least a flawed reaction. I would have rather lefts gods out of it, but oh well.What if the mundane experiences are what are pointing to the existence of gods?I don’t think the point is about gods themselves but more onto those experiences that we cannot verify scientifically. It’s dumb to just discredit them all as imaginary.