Incoherence Theory

A problem with using evidence to prove, for instance, that the earth is round, is that one must first assume that reality is consistent. But what proof is there that reality is consistent? How do we know that the earth isn't flat for some observers and round for others? Perhaps, like quantum theory, the observation itself influences what is observed.

We don't, we just assume that it is so that we can move beyond this problem and actually start learning some stuff.

A problem with using evidence to prove, for instance, that the earth is round, is that one must first assume that reality is consistent. But what proof is there that reality is consistent? How do we know that the earth isn't flat for some observers and round for others? Perhaps, like quantum theory, the observation itself influences what is observed.

Reality for me is always inconsistent with the sheer volumes of drug cocktails I partake in on a consistent basis.

We don't, we just assume that it is so that we can move beyond this problem and actually start learning some stuff.

But if your assumption is wrong you have learned nothing.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 07, 2010, 05:52:51 PM

We don't, we just assume that it is so that we can move beyond this problem and actually start learning some stuff.

But if your assumption is wrong you have learned nothing.

Assumptions - the mother of all fuckups

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 07, 2010, 05:52:51 PM

We don't, we just assume that it is so that we can move beyond this problem and actually start learning some stuff.

But if your assumption is wrong you have learned nothing.

True, and if we find out its wrong we will either;
try to find out the truth
or make another, more feasible assumption
and start over again. There's nothing we can do about it.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 07, 2010, 05:52:51 PM

We don't, we just assume that it is so that we can move beyond this problem and actually start learning some stuff.

But if your assumption is wrong you have learned nothing.

Call we when you can prove whether or not anything we observe exists. Until then, ill just keep up the assumption that they do.

Quote from: Dino on January 07, 2010, 08:59:13 PM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 07, 2010, 05:52:51 PM

We don't, we just assume that it is so that we can move beyond this problem and actually start learning some stuff.

But if your assumption is wrong you have learned nothing.

Call we when you can prove whether or not anything we observe exists. Until then, ill just keep up the assumption that they do.

Agreed, one can only prove things false in science. Besides one can only see through ones own eyes. One has no control group, or way of knowing that what others see is consistent with their version of reality (let alone that they exist). The natural lack of objectivity makes it so one must assume what they see is true. 

But if your assumption is wrong you have learned nothing.

If his assumption is wrong then your reality is irrelevant to his anyway. He is still learning more about his own reality, and he has no reason to be concerned with yours.

Moved accordingly.

I thought this would be a thread about Raa. 

A problem with using evidence to prove, for instance, that the earth is round, is that one must first assume that reality is consistent. But what proof is there that reality is consistent? How do we know that the earth isn't flat for some observers and round for others? Perhaps, like quantum theory, the observation itself influences what is observed.

We will never know if what we are observing is real. We are limited by the fact that the only inputs our brain can receive are from our senses. Therefore if our senses are in any way faulty we could never know. (As long as they are consistent with each other)

All science makes the assumptions that we observe our universe correctly. No work could be done without this assumption.

Quote from: Dino on January 07, 2010, 04:37:04 PM

A problem with using evidence to prove, for instance, that the earth is round, is that one must first assume that reality is consistent. But what proof is there that reality is consistent? How do we know that the earth isn't flat for some observers and round for others? Perhaps, like quantum theory, the observation itself influences what is observed.

We will never know if what we are observing is real. We are limited by the fact that the only inputs our brain can receive are from our senses. Therefore if our senses are in any way faulty we could never know. (As long as they are consistent with each other)

All science makes the assumptions that we observe our universe correctly. No work could be done without this assumption.

The assumption is that we are observing things in a 3d environment and as thus, the universe exists in 3d.  This is where our senses may fool us, we can only see, hear etc in the 3rd dimensions.  String theory could mean that other dimensions exist and as such, we are not able to observe phenomena within them or the universe accurately.  So yes, we will never know if what we are observing is real.

Quote from: Raist on January 09, 2010, 09:40:25 AM

Quote from: Dino on January 07, 2010, 04:37:04 PM

A problem with using evidence to prove, for instance, that the earth is round, is that one must first assume that reality is consistent. But what proof is there that reality is consistent? How do we know that the earth isn't flat for some observers and round for others? Perhaps, like quantum theory, the observation itself influences what is observed.

We will never know if what we are observing is real. We are limited by the fact that the only inputs our brain can receive are from our senses. Therefore if our senses are in any way faulty we could never know. (As long as they are consistent with each other)

All science makes the assumptions that we observe our universe correctly. No work could be done without this assumption.

The assumption is that we are observing things in a 3d environment and as thus, the universe exists in 3d.  This is where our senses may fool us, we can only see, hear etc in the 3rd dimensions.  String theory could mean that other dimensions exist and as such, we are not able to observe phenomena within them or the universe accurately.  So yes, we will never know if what we are observing is real.

Lol, could you state all of that in a non vague way. I'd really like to hear you get down to the details with your knowledge on the subject.

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on January 09, 2010, 06:02:35 PM

Quote from: Raist on January 09, 2010, 09:40:25 AM

Quote from: Dino on January 07, 2010, 04:37:04 PM

A problem with using evidence to prove, for instance, that the earth is round, is that one must first assume that reality is consistent. But what proof is there that reality is consistent? How do we know that the earth isn't flat for some observers and round for others? Perhaps, like quantum theory, the observation itself influences what is observed.

We will never know if what we are observing is real. We are limited by the fact that the only inputs our brain can receive are from our senses. Therefore if our senses are in any way faulty we could never know. (As long as they are consistent with each other)

All science makes the assumptions that we observe our universe correctly. No work could be done without this assumption.

The assumption is that we are observing things in a 3d environment and as thus, the universe exists in 3d.  This is where our senses may fool us, we can only see, hear etc in the 3rd dimensions.  String theory could mean that other dimensions exist and as such, we are not able to observe phenomena within them or the universe accurately.  So yes, we will never know if what we are observing is real.

Lol, could you state all of that in a non vague way. I'd really like to hear you get down to the details with your knowledge on the subject.

pretty hard without writing a wall of text on the subject, or just linking to bunch of websites.  Truth is no one knows all about this.  Besides by being deliberately vague it leaves all sorts of things open to possibilities and interpretations. 

Quote from: Raist on January 09, 2010, 07:33:07 PM

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on January 09, 2010, 06:02:35 PM

Quote from: Raist on January 09, 2010, 09:40:25 AM

Quote from: Dino on January 07, 2010, 04:37:04 PM

A problem with using evidence to prove, for instance, that the earth is round, is that one must first assume that reality is consistent. But what proof is there that reality is consistent? How do we know that the earth isn't flat for some observers and round for others? Perhaps, like quantum theory, the observation itself influences what is observed.

We will never know if what we are observing is real. We are limited by the fact that the only inputs our brain can receive are from our senses. Therefore if our senses are in any way faulty we could never know. (As long as they are consistent with each other)

All science makes the assumptions that we observe our universe correctly. No work could be done without this assumption.

The assumption is that we are observing things in a 3d environment and as thus, the universe exists in 3d.  This is where our senses may fool us, we can only see, hear etc in the 3rd dimensions.  String theory could mean that other dimensions exist and as such, we are not able to observe phenomena within them or the universe accurately.  So yes, we will never know if what we are observing is real.

Lol, could you state all of that in a non vague way. I'd really like to hear you get down to the details with your knowledge on the subject.

pretty hard without writing a wall of text on the subject, or just linking to bunch of websites.  Truth is no one knows all about this.  Besides by being deliberately vague it leaves all sorts of things open to possibilities and interpretations. 

Meaning you were bsing. amiright?

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on January 09, 2010, 08:11:44 PM

Quote from: Raist on January 09, 2010, 07:33:07 PM

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on January 09, 2010, 06:02:35 PM

Quote from: Raist on January 09, 2010, 09:40:25 AM

Quote from: Dino on January 07, 2010, 04:37:04 PM

A problem with using evidence to prove, for instance, that the earth is round, is that one must first assume that reality is consistent. But what proof is there that reality is consistent? How do we know that the earth isn't flat for some observers and round for others? Perhaps, like quantum theory, the observation itself influences what is observed.

We will never know if what we are observing is real. We are limited by the fact that the only inputs our brain can receive are from our senses. Therefore if our senses are in any way faulty we could never know. (As long as they are consistent with each other)

All science makes the assumptions that we observe our universe correctly. No work could be done without this assumption.

The assumption is that we are observing things in a 3d environment and as thus, the universe exists in 3d.  This is where our senses may fool us, we can only see, hear etc in the 3rd dimensions.  String theory could mean that other dimensions exist and as such, we are not able to observe phenomena within them or the universe accurately.  So yes, we will never know if what we are observing is real.

Lol, could you state all of that in a non vague way. I'd really like to hear you get down to the details with your knowledge on the subject.

pretty hard without writing a wall of text on the subject, or just linking to bunch of websites.  Truth is no one knows all about this.  Besides by being deliberately vague it leaves all sorts of things open to possibilities and interpretations. 

Meaning you were bsing. amiright?

no. I delivered that rant with absolute sincerity.