pleb

I agree with Matt,

There is no quantity of correlation that promotes one iota of certainty or probability.

The issue is Matt, many people like this gentlemen here actually believe that scientific experimentation offers explanations.

How many times have we heard, "there must be a rational explanation", when it fact never has a rational explanation ever been provided for any phenomenon.

We can't involve degrees, when the extreme principles infer that no such claims can be made. There is an unknown amount of probability given any proposition.

The only form of falsifiability we're capable of is in whether or not a person is conforming to the traditional use of language. If I say that 2 + 2 = 5, then I am wrong, since the rules for mathematical language are understood with certainty based on our tradition.

If I claimed that a plane IS powered by fairy dust and yet it is NOT powered by fairy dust, then I am technically wrong since I abused the use of language.

"The only reason "science" would claim that your assertion is wrong is if your explanation doesn't agree with reality."

Your statement is a circular reference to the problem of induction. You arbitrarily claim to be able to make accurate assertions of reality while at the same time agreeing that the essence of reality is unknowable.

This reply of yours is full of circular reasoning. Stop using the word good without making your case for righteousness. You can't substitute it with practical or useful either, both infer benefit at the personal degree.

Just because an expectation proved to be useful once, remember that the past does not predict the future.

"Belief in the Causal Nexus is superstition"

I agree that we do not disagree.

Your post is simply applying a different definition to the terms I used.

Your reply is a case for righteousness.

I don't think you have considered the implications of the use of such words as "good". I agree with you that experimentation is futile in the absence of ethics.

Why are you presuming common application of the use of the word good and useful? For example, the science behind the atomic bomb and it's usage, was it useful? To whom was it useful, those devastated by the blast or those who set it off?

I urge you to reevaluate your basis for righteousness.

Don't you understand that morality requires certainty?

I couldn't edit, so I'll reply, but this mind bending quote really sums up the limitations of logic and observation.

"Language disguises the thought; so that from the external form of the clothes one cannot infer the form of the thought they clothe, because the external form of the clothes is constructed with quite another object than to let the form of the body be recognized." - Wittgenstein

The problem is that causation is an oxymoron.

The measurement problem is the same as the problem of induction.

Max Planck understood this, read his quotes on matter.

No amount of correlation increases the probability of one event followed by another. Therefore, all scientific analysis is unverifiable. Knowledge of the world is completely unjustified. Not to mention our immense presumption of consistency in world phenomena when we really have no basis for asserting uniformity of nature. Read Hume on causality.

"Belief in the Causal Nexus is superstition" - Wittgenstein

If knowledge requires certainty, and our method of determining certainty is an infinite regress of reduction, it is like a recursive function which never returns a value.

Logic is inherently a comparison operator, and if logic is the only mechanism available to us, we are trapped in a purely relational analysis and it is impossible for the mind to conceive of certainty beyond a non-reasonable emotional preordained state of knowing. A feeling so powerful it is personally indubitable.

The premise of a singularity is invalid since it is inconceivable and the idea that causation is at any time inferred via comparison is fundamentally incomprehensible. If the premise is unclear then the argument is invalid.

If I say that an airplane functions on fairy dust and you make an argument about propulsion and lift, and you claim that my assertion is wrong because I have not properly performed a rational reduction and that a detail I do not understand could invalidate my entire theory, well guess what neither of us is technically correct to any degree since the test for invalidity applies equally to both of our assumptions. The concept of proof is also an oxymoron.

Hence, the very concept of phenomenal causation is an oxymoron. The notion of knowledge about the world is a disguise for a coping mechanism based on hope and desire.