Video: Putting faith in its place.

[laconicsax]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

Faith has no place demanding agreement or punishing disagreement.

Imagine you enter a strange room where a computer tells you that hidden somewhere in the building is a cube. It then asks you "What does the cube contain?" Most of us would recognize this to be a futile question. The cube could be large or small, it could be a solid block or it could be a vacuum chamber of nothing but sparse particles of gas. Or it might contain any one of billions of permutations of familiar or novel objects. You could never give a precise justifiable answer.

But if you were asked, "What does the cube not contain?" You could give many answers. For example, the cube couldn't possibly contain the Amazon River, the planet Mars, or absurd objects such as 'a bed made of sleep.' In fact, there would be more perfectly valid answers to this second question than you could list in a million lifetimes. This illustrates an interesting asymmetry concerning the contents of this cube. Despite there being countless possibilities and impossibilities, without evidence from the cube itself, we can only ever make justifiable about what is not in the cube--not what is.

[tama]

1. Easy

the cube contains the computer and everything else in the strange room.

[laconicsax]

2. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

Under the premise, the physical attributes of the cube are unknown.

[tama]

3. So prove me wrong n/t

[laconicsax]

4. I don't need to. You made a positive claim leaving the burden of proof on you.

[jonnyblitz]

5. I notice DUers are always demanding people prove a negative.

so many are totally IGNORANT of the rules of debate.

[darkstar3]

9. Please...I think you give them too much credit

Every poster in R/T has heard the phrase "you can't prove a negative" before. They're all aware of it by now.

I think the problem is not ignorance, but rather disingenuousness. They KNOW it is impossible to prove a negative, and therefore pointless to ask, but they spend hours on logical and verbal gymnastics to try and turn the position of atheism into a positive claim so that it can be held to the same rules of empirical evidence.

The logical fallacies, they burn...

[Amaya]

44. bingo

nt

[laconicsax]

10. It's a really belligerent position.

"You think I'm wrong? Yeah, well PROVE it!"

It's like a last resort of people who have never considered that they don't actually know what they claim to know. People hate to be wrong, and being confronted with evidence of having been wrong can put someone on the defensive and illicit belligerent responses.

Nothing says, "I can't back it up" like "It's your job to prove me wrong."

[Amaya]

45. hey jonny!

:hi:

[tama]

6. Don't make up rules

A scientific truth (logically and empirically consistent theory) is valid untill proven wrong.

[darkstar3]

7. And who the hell made that rule up?

If you actually had STUDIED the scientific method, you would already know there is no such thing as a "scientific truth." In fact the scientific method tolerates only 3 things:

Hypothesis (I have an idea)
Theory (my idea has been tested and supported by results, but it's still an idea)
Law (An undeniable observation about the natural world, i.e. apples fall downward)

This is why there's such a thing as the "Law of Gravity" and the "Theory of Gravitation." We can make an undeniable observation that objects with mass tend to "fall" toward each other, and that is the law, but in order to mathematically describe it we have to guess and test, which yields a theory.

So your statement is completely and demonstrably false.

[tama]

12. Scientific truth

is a type of truth, conventional truth: a valid theory. A valid theory is logically (mathematically) and empirically consistent. So called "Laws" are also theories, rhetorically called "laws" because of presumed exceptional strenght of the theory.

"Observation that objects with mass tend to "fall" toward each other" is not law but empirical observation. Funnily enough, there is no scientifically true theory about gravity, Newton's theory is limited by some anomalies that Einstein's theory explains, but Einstein's theory is not mathematically consistent with Quantum Theory, which lacks good explanation of gravity.

[darkstar3]

13. I suggest you read more about the scientific method.

Also, you should know that empirical scientists actually hate the word "truth." Facts, evidence, correlating data, there are many names for the things that empirical scientists deal with daily, but they do not simply throw around the word "truth." It has too many vague, non-scientific connotations.

[tama]

16. OK

Popper started to speak about "verisimilitude" instead of "truth". Good enough.

I could go back to Aristotle and epistemic truths, technical truths, practical truths, philosophical truths, phronetic of "situational" truths, gnostic truths, but also could not. :)

[darkstar3]

17. Did you even have a point here? n/t

[tama]

26. Probably not

if you didn't find any. :)

[laconicsax]

8. The rules are already in place.

Your claim is based on nothing but conjecture. You have to provide evidence to support your conjecture if you want to be taken seriously.

Here's the premise:
1) You are in a room with a computer.
2) A cube exists.

Your conclusion, "the cube contains the computer and everything else in the strange room," is unsupported by the premise. There's nothing logically and empirically consistent about that.

Positive claims require evidence.

[tama]

11. Occam's Razor

is not conjecture, it's founding principle in science. There is empirical evidence of only one cube, the room. Presuming other cubes than the room, not empirically supported, would go against the founding principle of science, that simple = beautifull.

[darkstar3]

14. You can't apply the Razor here,

since in order to do it you are assuming that the room is a cube. Rooms come in many shapes and sizes, and truly cubical is a small subset of those shapes.

Further, your definition of the Razor appears to be incorrect, since it has nothing to do with simplicity being beautiful, and everything to do with minimizing the amount of conjecture and assumption in the search for answers.

[tama]

15. I jus't did

the razor-cat is allready out of the bag and there is no concensus to put her back. :)

No theory is ideology-free or free from analogy, so phenomenological truth is allways a good starting point for forming and reforming theories. This room is a cube, there is computer in this room, this computer says when displaying the OP that there is a cube somewhere. So why presume that the premiss talks about some other room and other computer somewhere else - instead of this immediate experiende?

So, minimizing the amout of conjecture and assumption while seeking widest explanatory power possible for our theory, holomorphic relationship seems the most natural answer: Universe is quantum computer, consciouss and alive, the cube-room (semantically) inside the universal computer is 3D-space, what is now experienced and theorized is hologrammic projection of universal whole to particular situation.

[darkstar3]

18. The word you're looking for is conSensus.

And I reject the incredibly flawed premise of your second paragraph. It is obvious that you have not sufficiently studied any of the pure sciences such as a biology, chemistry, physics, or even applied mathematics. If you had, you would know that the first sentence of your second paragraph is total and complete bunk.

Finally, your specious arguments and useless employment of overly large and underused English words are all an attempt at dodging the original problem: The burden of proof is on you. You keep trying to make us prove you wrong, when in fact you are the one who made a claim as to the nature of the box, and you must therefore provide evidence to prove that claim. As of this moment you have not provided that proof. All you've done is blather on about some nebulous truth.

[tama]

25. "incredibly flawed premise"

"the first sentence of your second paragraph is total and complete bunk."

What are you fighting against? Why all this hostility? :)

[darkstar3]

34. Hostility?

You walked into this thread playing "dance, monkey, DANCE," and because I seriously disagree with you I'M the one who's hostile?
:crazy:

[tama]

39. Not because

of seriously disagreeing. But there has been hostile language. Does appearance of hostile language through your keyboard make you hostile? You can answer that best, I can only hope not. :)

[PVnRT]

47. "No theory is ideology free or free from analogy"

Huh?

What ideology drives the General Theory of Relativity?

Analogies are only useful in relating theories to everyday objects and events. They have nothing to do with the theories themselves.

[laconicsax]

19. You're assuming things and calling them evidence.

You don't know that the room is a cube. It could be cylindrical, it could be trapezoidal, it could be pyramidal. You don't know that the cube is bigger than the room you're in, where it is in relation to the room you're in, or whether there are any other rooms in which it could be. Let's review the premise:

"Imagine you enter a strange room where a computer tells you that hidden somewhere in the building is a cube"

All you know is that:
1) You are in a room with a computer.
2) A cube exists.

Claims about the cube's proximity, size, density, or any other physical attribute rely on assumptions, not evidence. Similarly, as the scenario is given, all you know about the room is:

1) You are in it.

You don't even know if the computer is contained within the room--it isn't established by the premise. All you know about the computer is that part of it that can communicate with you is in the room--possibly a monitor, maybe a speaker.

Your guess is that the cube is the room. I'll hazard a guess--that the cube is in another room within the building.

Applying Occam's Razor actually favors my guess because it relies on fewer assumptions. Your guess assumes four specific things about the cube (precise size, location, structure, and contents), one specific thing about the room (shape), and one thing about the computer (wholly contained within the room). Mine only assumes one thing about the cube (location) and one thing about the building (at least two rooms).

In case you weren't counting, that's six assumptions your answer requires (specific size, specific location, specific structure, specific contents, exact shape of the room, and configuration of the computer) and two assumptions that mine requires (location, and minimum number of rooms in the building).

My answer, by relying on fewer assumptions, is simpler and therefore better.

[darkstar3]

20. You were expecting the PROPER use of the Razor?

In R/T?

In my experience, 90% of the people who invoke the great Occam have NO idea what the Razor is actually supposed to do or how to apply it.

I actually think that's why it's named Occam's Razor. Because aside from cutting through the bullshit, it's also a mildly dangerous tool with which you can cut yourself.

[laconicsax]

21. Not really...

The video is about the validity of claims consisting of guesses supported by assumptions and how people making those claims have no right to demand agreement.

Naturally, when the first response is a claim consisting of guesses supported by assumptions and that poster demands agreement, you have to assume that logic isn't in play.

[darkstar3]

22. Have you ever read any of Lewis' non-fiction?

He and his cohorts/contemporaries in the Christian apologist movement THRIVE by doing exactly what you just stated in your first sentence. And their works have been used to train a generation of believers how to defend their faith.

It is sad that we have to reach so far back in time to find a great philosopher or logician. You would think that as time passes and we become more evolved and aware of our place in the universe that we would be turning out great thinkers by the truckload, but alas, we end up with people who take the Lewis track and then wonder why we look at them as if they just said "I rode into work on an invisible pink unicorn made out of spaghetti."

OK, that was a bad pun, maybe I shouldn't post when I'm this tired.
:hi:

[tama]

24. Good reminder

For example if properly used the razor cut's the subjective 1st person from "cogito ergo sum", leaving just: "thinking is happening".

[tama]

23. Step by step.

The 1st premiss: "all you know about the room is: 1) You are in it."
In other words, "all I know about the room is: 1) I'm in it."

"You don't even know if the computer is contained within the room--it isn't established by the premise."

Wrong. I know empirically there is computer contained within the room I'm in - I'm looking at the monitor and typing with the keyboard right now as we speak.

"I'll hazard a guess--that the cube is in another room within the building."

The existance of a building and other rooms are not within given premisses, they are superfluous unnecessary assumptions - razor applies.

"Applying Occam's Razor actually favors my guess because it relies on fewer assumptions. Your guess assumes four specific things about the cube (precise size, location, structure, and contents), one specific thing about the room (shape), and one thing about the computer (wholly contained within the room). Mine only assumes one thing about the cube (location) and one thing about the building (at least two rooms)."

Wrong. Structure (cubeness) and contents (computer) of this room I'm in are not assumed but direct empirical data, verified by sensual data each passing moment. Size and location of this room I'm in are not meaningfull in this context but even if meaningfull, not assumed but verified by sensual data.
So I'm assuming nothing, you are making at least two unverified assumptions.

You are not taking this excercise seriously (simply) enough, imagining yourself in some imaginary room in imaginary building instead of being where you actually are - where ever that may be, looking at a computer monitor... inside cubelike 3D-room... ;)

[laconicsax]

36. You honestly don't see that you're making assumptions?

Wrong. I know empirically there is computer contained within the room I'm in - I'm looking at the monitor and typing with the keyboard right now as we speak.

Do you understand that this isn't about the specific room that you're using to access the Internet? You are assuming that the hypothetical room is identical to the room you're using to access the Internet. Your observations about the room you're using to access the Internet are immaterial to the hypothetical room of this scenario. Nothing suggests that the hypothetical room is the room you're using to access the Internet. It is a baseless assumption that the two rooms are one in the same.

The existance [sic] of a building and other rooms are not within given premisses [sic], they are superfluous unnecessary assumptions - razor applies.

The original premise (note the correct spelling) is "Imagine you enter a strange room where a computer tells you that hidden somewhere in the building is a cube." 'Room' and is used for the space you have entered and 'building' is used for the space containing the cube. It is implied that 'room' is part of 'building' but not given as a specific detail, nor is your assumption that room=building.

Wrong. Structure (cubeness) and contents (computer) of this room I'm in are not assumed but direct empirical data, verified by sensual data each passing moment. Size and location of this room I'm in are not meaningfull [sic] in this context but even if meaningfull [sic], not assumed but verified by sensual data.
So I'm assuming nothing, you are making at least two unverified assumptions.

You are not taking this excercise [sic] seriously (simply) enough, imagining yourself in some imaginary room in imaginary building instead of being where you actually are - where ever that may be, looking at a computer monitor... inside cubelike 3D-room...

Again, you are assuming that the hypothetical room in this exercise (note the correct spelling) is the room that you're using to access the Internet. Nothing in the premise supports that assumption. Your 'empirical' observations are based on an assumption that is unsupported by the premise. What's more, you're accusing me of committing the same error that you claim to make above. What's more, the room I'm in isn't cube-like, nor are any of the other rooms in the building where I live. Assuming that you aren't in an imaginary room is operating outside of the premise.

Again, here is the premise:
"Imagine you enter a strange room where a computer tells you that hidden somewhere in the building is a cube."

You suggest that this be changed to "You are in the room in which you are currently accessing the Internet and that room is cube-like. Your computer tells you that hidden somewhere in the building is a cube." Sorry, that completely changes the premise, defeating the purpose of the hypothetical exercise.

You have no authority on which to demand agreement with claim that the "strange room" is the room you describe. You're making a guess.

[tama]

40. Caught in the flow

of dialogue. To quote you:

"The 1st premiss: "all you know about the room is: 1) You are in it.""

This was the most fun and revealing part the excercise, at least for me, coming back with your guidance from an imagined hypothetical room to this actualizing phenomenological reality.

Thanks. You have been a good teacher.

[PVnRT]

46. There is nothing logical nor empirically consistent about your statement

You have performed no experimentation nor attempted to gather data or evidence of any kind, you have simply made a statement. I could just easily claim that the cube contains corned beef hash. Now prove me wrong.

[tama]

27. Cube

Physical attributes of a cube are well defined, a cube is generally or metaphorically a 3D-space, more spesifically a Platonic solic, a regular hexahedron.

[Silent3]

29. I can't make up my mind if you're actually serious about this...

...or just playing a game to see how much you can obfuscate and complicate the simple fact that your "easy" answer is bullshit.

Your answer has a tiny, tiny (and pretty meaningless) advantage over other answers in that it only involves things mentioned inside the terse description of the hypothetical situation.

Do we leap to the conclusion that computers are self-creating or eternal objects, simply because the video doesn't mention computer manufacturing facilities?

Do you imagine that the man show in front of the computer is entirely biologically self-sufficient because the story doesn't ever mention food or oxygen?

Further down in the thread, I see you playing this ridiculous claim of pretending that applying Occam's Razor somehow means limiting yourself to things mentioned in the set up of the situation, as if the description must enumerate all objects that are allowed to be considered as part of the universe of the hypothetical situation.

[tama]

31. So you are asking,

what else in the cube? I can only answer, based on the premiss of holomorphic universe and in all seriousness: all and everything.

I also agree that sciense is often pretty ridiculous game, but that's how it is often played. So why take something so ridiculous so seriously, why not just have a good laugh with it? :)

[Silent3]

43. How can you so totally miss the point of the video...

...or why do you so willfully try to distort it?

And where does "sciense (sic) is often pretty ridiculous (sic) game" come out of this, other than being a random barb you want to toss in because it's somehow part of your personal agenda?

The point is about proving negatives, about baseless assertions, about limitations of knowledge, about how some types of deductions can still be strongly made even in the face of limited knowledge while others can't.

You can have all the "fun" with the video you like, but your understanding of the problem presented in the video is like someone "solving" Rubik's Cube by figuring out how to disassemble the cube and put it back together with all of the sides the same color rather than figuring out the sequence of turns to solve the puzzle -- maybe it's cheekily clever in a way, but I'd hope that you'd recognize how much a trick like that misses the point.

[tama]

33. PS

There may have been also some serious points "hidden" somewhere in the "cube" of all this blather, at least offered as such. But of course the seriousness actualizes only if taken seriously. I hold no patent nor copyright over seriousness, probably not even copyleft.

[tama]

28. To conclude.

Now I even watched the video. Very fun excersice, thanks for the poster! It reminds me of the phonograph that self-destroys when playing itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach).

There is some very clever language that can easily confuse the reader/viewer ("Imagine", "strange room", "hidden somewhere", "in the building"), yet the premises are clear and it is obvious that it can be said based on the given premises that
1) there/here is one cube clearly observable when the confusion dissolves, namely the room.
2) the cube-room contains the computer and 'me'

[darkstar3]

30. You know, I'd be willing to give your arguments more weight

If you were able to use spell-check. As it is, every time I read one of your posts in this thread I am confronted with the same reaction. Namely, "Dude, wait 'till the dope wears off before posting."

It is amazing to me that you are so incredibly wrong on this subject, and yet so convinced of your correctness that you employ snark and condescension in your answers. It puts me in mind of a quote from Billy Madison:

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[tama]

32. Sorree

mee stoopid forinner, mee spoill your linguage incongluently. And too lazy to use the Check Spelling button.

"Dude, wait 'till the dope wears off before posting."

Oooh, if I only had some dope. I would fly high with poetic license!

[tama]

42. OK

I'll try to improve my lazy habits and use the spell checking button from now on.

As for the main content of your post, it is what is usually called an "ad-hominem". Not the worst effort to seek certain kind of reaction from a defense-mechanism called "person", not the best. Naturally, the personal defense-mechanism is also present as assumed and intended to become present, and also hurts as intended - simply because of intention to hurt. Gladly, this personal defense-mechanism, though present also, is not all that is but just as a part of some larger whole which includes also character and many other experiences and aspects of humanity and life. Personal defense-mechanisms become and are present when so acquired, but they are not always holding the reins over reactions. :)

[laconicsax]

37. If you're refering to the room shown in the video, you're still assuming where the back wall is:

This picture is all we see of the room:


Since we don't know where the rear wall is, we can't assume this room to be a cube. The distance from the front wall containing the computer monitor to the rear wall could be twice as far as the distance from floor to ceiling as in this diagram:


For the room to be a cube, a wall has to be assumed to exist at the dotted line between halves 'A' and 'B.' As you can see however, it is possible for the perspective of video image to easily be from an observer standing on side 'B.'

What's more, the room shown in the video is wider than it is tall, precluding it from being a cube.

[tama]

38. Correctomundo

I muct accept that what has been said makes sense only inside a metaphorical cube (whether speaking about the video or this room), not so much inside a well defined Platonic cube. If this has been a contest of being being right, you win. If this has been a contest of learning, I hope you win too. :)

[tiny elvis]

41. tama, you are a rare jewel

your first comment was very clever and i admire the way you supported it
salut

[ZombieHorde]

35. Fun video, I loved the cartoon people. nt