I absolutely believe in human evolution.
@NoLuckOnlySkill , are you serious? Animals and humans have more in common than differences.
@hal9k
Well logic is logic, and science does use the tools of logic. But to be fare science does require some assumptions (which one might say we all "believe" in) to build on top of (similarly to axioms in mathematics if you wish).
And also strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. Proofs exist only in mathematics. Science just creates theories and models (sometimes mathematical models) that try to predict and explain the observable. But theories cannot be proven. Only theorems can.
Logic is closer to mathematics rather than science so ok, proofs exist in logic as well yeah
Well logic is logic, and science does use the tools of logic. But to be fare science does require some assumptions (which one might say we all "believe" in) to build on top of (similarly to axioms in mathematics if you wish).
And also strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. Proofs exist only in mathematics. Science just creates theories and models (sometimes mathematical models) that try to predict and explain the observable. But theories cannot be proven. Only theorems can.
Logic is closer to mathematics rather than science so ok, proofs exist in logic as well yeah
@blunderman1 almost all very clear and right, yet we don't believe in assumptions.
We can accept them or reject, or give them some probability, though of course case when you have right to do this is extremely rare in common world, since almost always exist people who are more competent and spent more efforts to understand question.
We can accept them or reject, or give them some probability, though of course case when you have right to do this is extremely rare in common world, since almost always exist people who are more competent and spent more efforts to understand question.
@hal9k
Ok i agree about assumption, still that's the closest thing that has something to do with believing.
And well, breaching into philosophy, you kinda need to believe that the observables i was talking about are a part of some objective reality that exists and that is governed by some mechanics etc., in order to keep digging and investigating and trying to explain it (scientifically). For all I (we) know, you guys might not even exist and i am just a part of some computer simulation together with everything i observe that has no underlying logic.
Ok i agree about assumption, still that's the closest thing that has something to do with believing.
And well, breaching into philosophy, you kinda need to believe that the observables i was talking about are a part of some objective reality that exists and that is governed by some mechanics etc., in order to keep digging and investigating and trying to explain it (scientifically). For all I (we) know, you guys might not even exist and i am just a part of some computer simulation together with everything i observe that has no underlying logic.
@lol i was just _exactly_ was thinking is that all this requires to say that we need to agree that we don't live in matrix, that world is real and we are not just interfaces, some sort of object, which has input receptors and so on so on...
How on earth we can have so similar ideas here? :)
How on earth we can have so similar ideas here? :)
@hal9k
Yeah but agreeing on something (assumption or not) without the logical inference to back it up, is kind of the definition of believing. Although you can kind of agree on something without believing it - nah this is too complicated - dont know. And way too far from the original topic of evolution... uga gua muhu buga i want a banana igha uga
Yeah but agreeing on something (assumption or not) without the logical inference to back it up, is kind of the definition of believing. Although you can kind of agree on something without believing it - nah this is too complicated - dont know. And way too far from the original topic of evolution... uga gua muhu buga i want a banana igha uga
I love this general chess discussion.
@Harutsedo
Chess, mathematics, logic... what is the difference. You get your axioms - rules of chess and initial position. And you start building theorems - moves that win, moves that lose, winning positions, drawn positions, etc..
Actually antichess i think was recently proven (proven as in mathematics, not "proven" as on the tv news and pop-sci docu-shows) to be winning for white, starting from the initial position.
... yeah still nothing about evolution. Hopefully I finish my beer soon. Why people care so much about evolution anyway. Who cares what happened, so much more interesting is what can happen and is going to happen and is happening
But yeah, this thread probably belongs to offtopic
Chess, mathematics, logic... what is the difference. You get your axioms - rules of chess and initial position. And you start building theorems - moves that win, moves that lose, winning positions, drawn positions, etc..
Actually antichess i think was recently proven (proven as in mathematics, not "proven" as on the tv news and pop-sci docu-shows) to be winning for white, starting from the initial position.
... yeah still nothing about evolution. Hopefully I finish my beer soon. Why people care so much about evolution anyway. Who cares what happened, so much more interesting is what can happen and is going to happen and is happening
But yeah, this thread probably belongs to offtopic
@blunderman1 Who cares what happened and is going to happen
Oh, can't agree on that at all. This is strictly most beautiful question we can possibly get.
All other questions, life, them all are finite, already asked by previous generations. If we repeat smth that is done before, we are not going forward. But mankind have some real threats, like supernova explosion, which can make all of us never existed and clear off the magnificent nature of life from nearest universe.
Shouldn't we try to value it, save it, and try to understand it more than any other important thing on earth? Feels right to me. And only way to understand nature is to use rules it has by itself, which is exactly why logic and knowledge is right approach, not beliefs.
P.S. Touched here very interesting question of what is right approach to understanding, since we by definition assume some close to us ideas, like if you can predict smth then you understand it. This is highly related to things which we learned with evolution which were required to survive, yet prediction can be far from best criteria of understanding smth.
Oh, I indedd flow off topiuc. Ugaaaa-aaa guga muhu buga i want a banana igha uga
Oh, can't agree on that at all. This is strictly most beautiful question we can possibly get.
All other questions, life, them all are finite, already asked by previous generations. If we repeat smth that is done before, we are not going forward. But mankind have some real threats, like supernova explosion, which can make all of us never existed and clear off the magnificent nature of life from nearest universe.
Shouldn't we try to value it, save it, and try to understand it more than any other important thing on earth? Feels right to me. And only way to understand nature is to use rules it has by itself, which is exactly why logic and knowledge is right approach, not beliefs.
P.S. Touched here very interesting question of what is right approach to understanding, since we by definition assume some close to us ideas, like if you can predict smth then you understand it. This is highly related to things which we learned with evolution which were required to survive, yet prediction can be far from best criteria of understanding smth.
Oh, I indedd flow off topiuc. Ugaaaa-aaa guga muhu buga i want a banana igha uga
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.