Timeline for Is naturalism falsifiable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2022 at 19:46 | comment | added | yters | I thought it was pretty self evident: laws of physics give rise to chemistry give rise to biology give rise to humanity give rise to society give rise to science, etc. It all starts with simple laws of physics and atoms colliding with each other, and at the other end we have this thread on SE the product of intricate technology discussing the nature of things. | |
| Sep 27, 2022 at 16:28 | comment | added | anon | You are making an analogy between naturalism and finite automata via “bottom up”, that I do not follow. Not only can I not see how finite automata represent a bottom-up explanation, but you define naturalism as bottom-up (a definition which I didn’t encounter yet) without actually justifying that with arguments/observation. Not saying it isn’t true. Just not useful. // Additionally, your argument too is based on hypotheticals that don’t exist in reality: Phenomena that must be explained in a top down manner. … As you example cannot show the existence of such phenomena,, given its invalidity. | |
| Sep 27, 2022 at 16:18 | comment | added | anon | The singular of “automata” is “automaton”, by the way. One finite automaton, several finite automata. Ditto for “phenomena” -> “phenomenon”. | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 14:59 | comment | added | yters | Well if our observations keep implying the intervention of a more powerful process on the lower level laws, that sounds pretty falsified to me. Sure, a naturalist can just keep calling the new thing another natural law, but naturalism is really the claim that all the complexity we see can emerge from simple things. If we always need even more complex things to explain the complex things, no one is going to believe the theory. Alternatively, naturalism is indistinguishable from supernaturalism, because we can just call God, ghosts, and the soul 'natural'. | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 14:49 | comment | added | user48437 | Your FA &TM analogy sounds like Newtonian Physics (NP) & General Relativity (GR). Are you suggesting GR falsified NP? If that's the case, I fail to see how that falsifies naturalism per se. Both GR and NP are naturalistic theories. Even if a new more complex naturalistic theory is required to explain a given phenomenon, that's still a naturalistic theory. Naturalism per se is not falsified. | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 14:42 | comment | added | yters | I'm just establishing that naturalism can be falsified in theory. Actually going the full distance and falsifying empirically is beyond my abilities :) | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 14:39 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Explained what top down means, and more detail added to example.
|
| Sep 26, 2022 at 14:38 | comment | added | user48437 | I can't really follow the logic of this answer. What do you mean by "top down manner"? Can you please formalize this concept a bit more? And what do you mean by explaining a phenomenon with a finite automata / Turning machine? What is a "phenomenon" in this context? Moreover, automata are abstract computer science models, so how do they apply to the real world? Can you present a concrete real world example instead? | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 14:37 | history | edited | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Explained what top down means
|
| Sep 26, 2022 at 13:58 | history | answered | yters | CC BY-SA 4.0 |