[One Degree]

Let me draw a fine line that I think you are capable of comprehending. You're right, we can't prove it is not true ... what we can prove is that it is not "Truth." I don't doubt that in it's original iteration, something happened to inspire later generations to enshrine the event. But look at the myriad of thought and opinion present on this little postage stamp called Pofo ... would you trust anyone here to record and propagate such an event - accurately?

Millions of people rely on the "Truth" as interpreted by self interested priests and religions for centuries. Terrible atrocities have been committed over disputes about the "Truth." Rabid believers still riot against modern "heresies." You don't have to look further than Nicaea to find the self serving motivation behind Christianity, or further than the "Sunni vs Shia" split in Islam to recognize that these teachings are human derived and not divine.

Only when people rely on their own experience of "Truth" and reject false prophets can they experience the reality Christ gifted us with.

Zam

You end upon with stating people must rely upon their own experience of truth as an argument against the truth experienced by others. I refer you back to @Potemkin ‘s post above. Both experiences of truth are wrapped in assumptions and beliefs. So whether something happened as exactly as you think it did or not, does not matter because none of us are capable of ‘truthful observation’. My mind is a little foggy right now, so I hope I understood and addressed your point.

Edit: @Zamuel I basically agree with what you are saying but I add to that, I would not be all that surprised our view is further from the Truth than one human being able to perform miracles. It is easy to assume current belief is superior to past belief, but that is just hubris, not proof.

[Saeko]

But how do we 'know' what we know about stellar dynamics? By observation and by constructing abstract theories which we believe are consistent with those observations. But this is still just inductive reasoning from a long series of observations. No matter how long that series of observations happens to be, we can never achieve certainty.

This is completely different from your earlier statement that the only reason we think that the sun will rise tomorrow is because it has risen every day in the past. Certainly, there are much much better reasons to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow than that.

On the other hand, the principle of determinism, i.e. the belief that an experiment performed under the same conditions will always have the same outcome, guarantees that the sun will rise tomorrow. And if it doesn't, then it is the observation that is wrong.

[One Degree]

The universe is expanding at 67 km/s.
We are headed for a collision with Andromeda at 402,000 km/h.
The sun is moving at 220 km/s.
The earth moves around the sun at 30 km/s.
Throw in all the unknowns, and believing the sun will rise tomorrow is wishful thinking.

[Zamuel]

You end upon with stating people must rely upon their own experience of truth as an argument against the truth experienced by others.

Not exactly ... make that against the truth "referred to" by others ...

Both experiences of truth are wrapped in assumptions and beliefs.

No, personal experiences come wrapped in our individual comprehension and insight. Even if it's wrong, it's real (to us.) We have no such reality with someone else's truth (especially at 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand.)

I basically agree with what you are saying but I add to that, I would not be all that surprised our view is further from the Truth than one human being able to perform miracles.

Personal truth has meaning (which our mind is capable of comprehending). Related truth is an abstract that offers only artificial relativity.

I think our own mind will use our experiential comprehension to our benefit. Artificial beliefs are detrimental to personal development.

Throw in all the unknowns, and believing the sun will rise tomorrow is wishful thinking.

OK, I'm taking bets ... Even giving odds. You guys put your $$$ where your mouth is ...

Zam

[One Degree]

I think our own mind will use our experiential comprehension to our benefit. Artificial beliefs are detrimental to personal development.

@Zamuel Very well said, and I fully agree this is our best way of viewing the world.

Since it is only a 50/50 chance, I see no advantage to betting.

[Saeko]

@Zamuel Very well said, and I fully agree this is our best way of viewing the world.

Since it is only a 50/50 chance, I see no advantage to betting.

If you think it's a 50/50 chance, then that's 1:1 odds. I believe its more like 99999999999999999:1 odds that the sun will rise tomorrow. If we both put in $100, and if the sun doesn't rise, then I have to pay you $99,999,999,999,999,999,900.00, and if the sun does rise, then I keep your $100.00. So, there is definitely an advantage to betting on this.

[One Degree]

If you think it's a 50/50 chance, then that's 1:1 odds. I believe its more like 99999999999999999:1 odds that the sun will rise tomorrow. If we both put in $100, and if the sun doesn't rise, then I have to pay you $99,999,999,999,999,999,900.00, and if the sun does rise, then I keep your $100.00. So, there is definitely an advantage to betting on this.

There is the small problem of you needing to pay if I am right.

[Saeko]

There is the small problem of you needing to pay if I am right.

I can afford to pay at 9:1 odds. That should be more than enough.

[One Degree]

I can afford to pay at 9:1 odds. That should be more than enough.

Is your account with the Bank of Heaven? That would be my only chance of collecting.

[Saeko]

Is your account with the Bank of Heaven? That would be my only chance of collecting.

Don't worry, I'm sure Hell has a reunification program.

[Besoeker]

Yes I do. Science imposes very high standards of proof before we can say that something is definitely true.

Proof is a slippery thing and is not common in science which is mostly theories based on observation and experimental evidence, not proof.

[Victoribus Spolia]

a "Proof" should be the demonstration of a logical necessity. That would be the formal, and not colloquial, sense of the term.

[Sivad]

This is completely different from your earlier statement that the only reason we think that the sun will rise tomorrow is because it has risen every day in the past. Certainly, there are much much better reasons to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow than that.

None that don't rest on the same principle of uniformity which is exactly what the skeptic is calling into question.

On the other hand, the principle of determinism, i.e. the belief that an experiment performed under the same conditions will always have the same outcome, guarantees that the sun will rise tomorrow. And if it doesn't, then it is the observation that is wrong.

But what justifies that principle?

[Potemkin]

This is completely different from your earlier statement that the only reason we think that the sun will rise tomorrow is because it has risen every day in the past. Certainly, there are much much better reasons to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow than that.

But all of those reasons are, ultimately, based on inductive reasoning - a generalisation from a large, but not infinite, series of observations.

On the other hand, the principle of determinism, i.e. the belief that an experiment performed under the same conditions will always have the same outcome, guarantees that the sun will rise tomorrow.

But the principle of determinism is wrong, as we now know. The Young two-slit experiment gives different results every time you pass an electron through it, despite the experimental set-up being identical every time. The electron appears at a different location on the screen every time. I believe Richard Feynman used this as an example of the fact that the principle of determinism is just flat-out wrong in his Lectures on Physics.

And if it doesn't, then it is the observation that is wrong.

Is that a direct quote from your equivalent of the Nicene Creed?

[Saeko]

But all of those reasons are, ultimately, based on inductive reasoning - a generalisation from a large, but not infinite, series of observations.

See, I would disagree that scientific principles are inductive generalizations and even that they are claims at all. Rather, they seem to work more like definitions in disguise. Newton's F = ma is not just a statement that relates acceleration to forces, but also defines the notion of force in the first place. If we find a contradiction between observations and the second law, we simply postulate new forces until the discrepancies go away.

But the principle of determinism is wrong, as we now know. The Young two-slit experiment gives different results every time you pass an electron through it, despite the experimental set-up being identical every time. The electron appears at a different location on the screen every time. I believe Richard Feynman used this as an example of the fact that the principle of determinism is just flat-out wrong in his Lectures on Physics.

True, but the same experiment if performed many times will always give the same probability distribution over the outcomes. That way, we can just cheat and say that it is stochastically deterministic.

Is that a direct quote from your equivalent of the Nicene Creed?

No, it's a direct quote from Allah.

[Sivad]

See, I would disagree that scientific principles are inductive generalizations and even that they are claims at all. Rather, they seem to work more like definitions in disguise. Newton's F = ma is not just a statement that relates acceleration to forces, but also defines the notion of force in the first place. If we find a contradiction between observations and the second law, we simply postulate new forces until the discrepancies go away.

If the second law was just true by definition(an analytic statement) there couldn't be any contradictions. Also, it's called a "law", which means it's taken to apply universally across all time and space to all objects. That's an inductive inference.

Three Criticisms of Newton’s Inductive Argument in the Principia

[Saeko]

If the second law was just true by definition(an analytic statement) there couldn't be any contradictions. Also, it's called a "law", which means it's taken to apply universally across all time and space to all objects. That's an inductive inference.

And lo and behold there are not. It should be noted that Einstein realized the need for a General Theory of Relativity only after proving mathematically that a Newtonian force field theory of gravity was literally impossible given that Special Relativity was true. It was only after this demonstration that no amount of cycles and epicycles could save Newton's universe that his theory died.

[Sivad]

And lo and behold there are not.

How do you know that? Either it's a definition or it's an empirical claim. If it's a definition it's logically impossible for there to be contradictions, if it's an empirical claim it's inductive.

[Zamuel]

How do you know that?

Let me introduce you folks to something new ... I have it right here in this little bottle ... It's cheap, so inexpensive, and it will cure all your problems ... Who'll be the first to step up and swallow this miracle cure? 1$ just $1 for a lifetime free of such problems ... Step up, step up, have those $ bills ready. Buy two! Take one home for the kids. Save them from the misery you suffer ... Just $1 for a bottle of Zamuel's Magic Probability Elixir ...

Zam

[Sivad]

Probability

How does probability solve the problem?