8 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Underdetermination

Interesting you should raise this point.

Within the last two days I posted  a comment about under, over and critical determination in Science, in another thread.

At the end I tried to use the @ function to alert you as I thought you might be interested.

unfortunely the utterly stupid input editor would not accept you and generate the link so I don't know if you saw it.

 

However the point is

Thank you for telling us what philosophers mean by undertermination.

Science and the Scientific Method (ie the subject of thsi trhead) has a quite different definition and usage.

Edited November 30, 20232 yr by studiot

1 minute ago, studiot said:

unfortunely the utterly stupid input editor would not accept you and generate the link so I don't know if you saw it.

 

Nopers, didn't see it. Link?

53 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Nopers, didn't see it. Link?

 

 

On 11/29/2023 at 11:40 AM, studiot said:

 

Understanding "Free Will"  ?

If you are going to understand free will you need to start by realising that this is a compound statement with an inherent tension or partial contradiction.

Furthermore if you are going to fully understand it you cannot pick and choose specific or particular definions alone.

~Fully automatically points to 'understanding' being a range rather than a single instance.

We can then see that both free and will also have ranges of meaning rather than just one.

 

Sometimes it is easier to define the negation or opposite of something and then say that the something is 'everything which is not the negation'.

 

Working along these lines what is the opposite or negation of free will ?

Do we negate one or both terms ?

Opposites to free couls be 'forced', or 'constrained' , which are different.

But 'will' implies a degree of forcing, therby opposing the idea of free.

Constraints are weaker than forcing, to which there is no opposition.

So we come to the idea that free will is anything within a set of constraints.

Physics make considerable use of the idea of 'degrees of freedom'.

On use of degrees of freedom is in making the distinction between a structure and a mechanism.

Structures ( and indeed other systems) can also be what is known as overdetermined.

Mechanisms are where a structure is underdetermined, so has one or more degrees of freedom, so is 'free' to take up a range of positions.

Does the mechanism therefore possess 'free will ?

 

Note for @Alkonoklazt  Computer systems and programs also conform to this underdetermined/overdetermined/uniquely determined  classification.

 

Don't know why the @function is not working properly ?

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

I see, it's that thread.

let me try to tag myself... @AIkonoklazt well, it works for me.

Actually, I think I know. the second letter in my handle is "i" and not "L". AI iconoclast, An iconoclast regarding AI, har-har.

13 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Actually, I think I know. the second letter in my handle is "i" and not "L". AI iconoclast, An iconoclast regarding AI, har-har.

Thanks, I'll try to remember that.

New fangled fonts are a nuisance like that.

Your linked Plato article reminds me of the convex hull in a linear programming exercise.

Hello - I'm posting here as I'm not sure where else to post at this moment. I'm a new member and I've joined to start a discussion/debate about my new model of the universe. Yes this is a bit of a plug for it, and I'm aware that the site doesn't like shameless spamming so I won't post any link or the title of it here. Could someone be kind enough to please let me know where is the best thread to have this debate or if I'm allowed to start a new thread detailing my model's perspective and interpretation of the universe. Thank you.

Essentially this is what my model does: It is a philosophical approach that fully resolves the duality of light and has exact definitions of time, matter and energy, which reveal our true reality. It also explains how string theory fits in with quantum mechanics and indeed all of physics, including gravity – all reasoned in plain English using logic and natural progression of base dimensional interactions.

Of course there's an awful lot more to it that this but I'll stop here as I don't want to bore everyone with a wall of text.

 

51 minutes ago, GeNie. said:

Could someone be kind enough to please let me know where is the best thread to have this debate or if I'm allowed to start a new thread

Find the Speculations section.  This is the pinned post at the top of it:

 

 

Karl Popper's philosophy of science, particularly his concept of falsification, has been the subject of debate and criticism. While his idea of a scientific theory being falsifiable (capable of being proven wrong) is influential, critics argue that it's not always practical or applicable in all areas of science, like sociology, due to the complexity of the subject matter

2 hours ago, prjna said:

Karl Popper's philosophy of science, particularly his concept of falsification, has been the subject of debate and criticism. While his idea of a scientific theory being falsifiable (capable of being proven wrong) is influential, critics argue that it's not always practical or applicable in all areas of science, like sociology, due to the complexity of the subject matter

That would call into question the extent to which disciplines like socoiology can really be considered science. Generally speaking "science" is used as short for "natural science", i.e. the systematic study and understanding of nature. Human affairs are not normally treated as being simply part of nature.

Just now, prjna said:

Karl Popper's philosophy of science, particularly his concept of falsification, has been the subject of debate and criticism. While his idea of a scientific theory being falsifiable (capable of being proven wrong) is influential, critics argue that it's not always practical or applicable in all areas of science, like sociology, due to the complexity of the subject matter

I agreed, but have you read the whole thread ? It has rambled far and wide.

In particular my comment on definitions applies.

The word Science has a range of definitions and it depends upon which one you choose.

4 hours ago, prjna said:

Karl Popper's philosophy of science, particularly his concept of falsification, has been the subject of debate and criticism. While his idea of a scientific theory being falsifiable (capable of being proven wrong) is influential, critics argue that it's not always practical or applicable in all areas of science, like sociology, due to the complexity of the subject matter

No wonder, only the children of philosophy and science are really on speaking terms, these days... 🤕

Are you talking about physics or science collectively?

5 hours ago, studiot said:

I agreed, but have you read the whole thread ? It has rambled far and wide.

In particular my comment on definitions applies.

The word Science has a range of definitions and it depends upon which one you choose.

Exactly, science is nearly and somewhat utterly everything

Its like an attempt to summarize a single portion of the Milky Way

20 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Are you talking about physics or science collectively?

What does that even mean?

I'm talking about the philosophy of science, what are your collective talking about?

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What does that even mean?

I'm talking about the philosophy of science, what are your collective talking about?

Your question is ":Effing Science: How does it work?" in the physics forum. Are you talking about physics or science collectively?

6 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Your question is ":Effing Science: How does it work?" in the physics forum. Are you talking about physics or science collectively?

This is in the philosophy section.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

This is in the philosophy section.

My apologies then, I was looking at the wrong one. Can you delete my post?

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What does that even mean?

I'm talking about the philosophy of science, what are your collective talking about?

Ignore my previous post, are you talking about science collectively? AS IN ALL OF SCIENCE? Different sciences may differ in philosophies.

11 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Ignore my previous post, are you talking about science collectively? AS IN ALL OF SCIENCE? Different sciences may differ in philosophies.

Different sciences will have different culture's not philosophies, but the point of this post:

On 5/1/2025 at 12:09 PM, dimreepr said:

No wonder, only the children of philosophy and science are really on speaking terms, these days... 🤕

is that philosophy set the initial parameters of science, and much like all 'children' it grew up thinking it's smarter than it's parent; ethics is essentially a sibling of science and is trying to guide it's brethren.

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Different sciences will have different culture's not philosophies, but the point of this post:

Different sciences have differing philosophies

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Different sciences have differing philosophies

Examples?

There are underlying philosophies of all science, such as the notion that there are objective, knowable facts to be discovered. That nature behaves according to consistent laws. That theories must be falsifiable,

11 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Different sciences have differing philosophies

No they don't:

Is this the 5 minute argument?

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Is this the 5 minute argument?

No its precisely 3:07, all sciences share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence, they do differ in their assumptions, values, and interpretations of data, leading to distinct philosophical perspectives. For example, physics and sociology, while both scientific fields, may have different views on the nature of objectivity and the role of values in research. 

On 5/3/2025 at 6:45 PM, swansont said:

Examples?

There are underlying philosophies of all science, such as the notion that there are objective, knowable facts to be discovered. That nature behaves according to consistent laws. That theories must be falsifiable,

All sciences share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence, they do differ in their assumptions, values, and interpretations of data, leading to distinct philosophical perspectives. For example, physics and sociology, while both scientific fields, have different views on the nature of objectivity and the role of values in research. - Sohan Lalwani's Quote of the Year

11 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

All sciences share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence, they do differ in their assumptions, values, and interpretations of data, leading to distinct philosophical perspectives. For example, physics and sociology, while both scientific fields, have different views on the nature of objectivity and the role of values in research

Sociology is not a physical (“hard”) science*. I’m not sure how data interpretation counts as philosophy.

*lots of things can be studied in a scientific manner, (e.g. hypotheses being falsifiable, and supporting or discarding them based on evidence), or incorporating relevant branches of science as tools, but that doesn’t make them science. It’s a way of increasing their rigor. History, for example.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sociology is not a physical (“hard”) science*. I’m not sure how data interpretation counts as philosophy.

*lots of things can be studied in a scientific manner, (e.g. hypotheses being falsifiable, and supporting or discarding them based on evidence), or incorporating relevant branches of science as tools, but that doesn’t make them science. It’s a way of increasing their rigor. History, for example.

I'm aware sociology is not a hard science. Data interpretation typically involves making meaning from data, which requires assumptions, interpretations, and judgments, which can vary significantly. I think you are getting methodology and philosophy confused, they have a common methodology which is that they "share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence," but can still differ significantly in methodology.

5 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I'm aware sociology is not a hard science. Data interpretation typically involves making meaning from data, which requires assumptions, interpretations, and judgments, which can vary significantly. I think you are getting methodology and philosophy confused, they have a common methodology which is that they "share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence," but can still differ significantly in methodology.

The philosophy is that empirical evidence means something. The observed behavior is real, and not an illusion or hallucination. The methodology is what’s different. Sociologists don’t use e.g. mass spectrometers very often.

But since it’s not a hard science, this isn’t particularly relevant.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

The philosophy is that empirical evidence means something. The observed behavior is real, and not an illusion or hallucination. The methodology is what’s different. Sociologists don’t use e.g. mass spectrometers very often.

But since it’s not a hard science, this isn’t particularly relevant.

Again, not every science has the same philosophy or methodology, one field may interpret data largely different from the other.