Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The Joy of *small* business
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:46:37 +0000
Organization: A little, after lunch
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vkb81d$14c3t$4@dont-email.me>
References: <o4ucnYo2YLqmZ876nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vducnSQpyvFJKcL6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lsbjodFn55gU9@mid.individual.net>
 <uaydnVxLl7sdQ_36nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <1248675b-e38a-04a7-93b3-6fa527725858@example.net>
 <vjrjnh$1mjo7$7@dont-email.me> <lse9fqF5ikfU10@mid.individual.net>
 <WsOcnaUN_rSgxf_6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vju6fv$2832d$2@dont-email.me>
 <J02dnXgXafNlPf76nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vk0rob$2q5m4$8@dont-email.me>
 <DF-dnRQm_J3MtPj6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <wwv7c7upv9j.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
 <rZOdnUROG7pLw_v6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <wwvplllmkdo.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
 <hLycnXYJh5xBHPr6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lspnd5Fpd5U1@mid.individual.net>
 <QuydnT2QrdBxJvr6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lsq4iuF2ubgU2@mid.individual.net> <vk8nib$ie68$3@dont-email.me>
 <fd79319f-61cb-9c03-df4c-7fdd06cc6247@example.net>
 <vk9arn$lsr4$2@dont-email.me>
 <1b67871a-8311-06f1-8738-c1d7068575f1@example.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 09:46:46 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="46e33f5fe7209cdeda83749f62943ed5";
	logging-data="1192061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uvD1mY7JptvuwJKP0I+1gixfHZpJfhXg="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gf2xKS1qw/s2zD60Eo2yNHNE0kI=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <1b67871a-8311-06f1-8738-c1d7068575f1@example.net>

On 22/12/2024 21:54, D wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> On 22/12/2024 11:28, D wrote:
>>>> The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient 
>>>> intelligence with a Plan in charge.
>>>>
>>>> Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply 
>>>> more complicated than necessary to explain this shit.
>>>
>>> I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has 
>>> happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.
>>>
>> I wasn't talking about the *practice* of science, or of religion for 
>> that matter. I was talking about their metaphysical *beliefs*.
> 
> Ahh... our definitions differ when it comes to science. I was tricked! 
> But I will drop this line as I think it leads us back to old threads. ;)
> 
>>> I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down 
>>> waaaay too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, 
>>> in reality "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the 
>>> questions is lacking?
>>
>> Precisely, In many ways the God explanation is simpler :
>>
>> "God did it all,  and faked it so it looks like he was never there at 
>> all, to test you fuckers"
>>
>> ...there are only three people who understand quantum physics and two 
>> of them are liars....
> 
> This is the truth and exactly one of the things I do not like with 
> Occam. If you're on team God (TM) that's the easiest explanation, if 
> you're on team Science (C), that's nonsense, and your version is the 
> simplest.
> 
> There's no way to decide from a neutral point, if you are dealing with 
> religious people regardless of if they are from the religion religion, 
> or the religion science (which has very little to do with the science as 
> a process).
> 
>> But if you examine Occam from outside the confines of realism and 
>> materialism, he makes perfect sense.
>>
>> 1. The problem of induction means that no inference  can ever be 
>> proved to be correct.
>> 2. So given that its all bullshit anyway, why not pick the simplest 
>> bullshit that fits the facts?
>> 3.  ...And fits within the accepted already established bullshit, that 
>> works...
> 
> Ah, but the problem of induction is a chimera, an illusion. Popper 
> argued that justification is not needed at all, and seeking 
> justification "begs for an authoritarian answer".
> 
> The only thing we need to worry about is if it works, and that's it.
> 
Yes, but Realist/materialists reject stuff that works on the basis that 
its 'not real'...


>> That is today's problem., People are absolutely reluctant to abandon 
>> the established bullshit, that works.
> 
> This is not a problem, this is the way. If it works, is in fact the only 
> way. If that is abandoned, everything else is meaningless. That is the 
> strength of materialism and a common, shared external world, and one of 
> the best arguments for it.

It is an argument for a shared external world, but not for its materiality

> 
> We've been down this path many times before I think.
> 
>> Even when they know it is actually wrong.
>>
>> The Kuhnian paradigm shift  is staring them in the face, but they 
>> simply cant accept it.
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of 
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

    -  John K Galbraith