A short discussion on Biogenesis
X: I can't believe that anyone would still not believe in evolution!
Z: Well, D is one. Go ask him why.
X: D, you don't believe in evolution? Why?
D: I just find the concept of natural selection really quite hard to believe.
*X and Z proceeds to explain natural selection*
D: Okay, but still, it is a process that theoretically takes millions and millions of years! How can scientists be so sure that the universe has existed for this long? Why can we assume that physical laws that hold true now holds true in the past as well, enabling us to extrapolate our methods into the past?
*Critical Hit*
Personal commentary: From my point of view, I haven't been convinced by D, because I have learnt many physical laws, all of which I implicitly assume are independent of the age of the universe. It would be much harder for me than for D to accept that the universe is much younger than it appears to be. However, I do not know why scientists think that the universe is billions of years old. It had just been a habit to accept the word of scientists and deny all that is contrary to it.
Yet the rigour of science is based on the scientific method, and the scientific method cannot tell us if the universe had physical laws so different in the past that we have been misled from its actual age. However, the scientific method can test many other laws that explain other phenomena, along with the assumptions that make these laws work. While these assumptions may not be the absolutely correct one (since there is always the possibility of there existing an unknown variable in a law), it seems reasonable to assume that we can extend these assumptions to untestable circumstances.
Why so? Well, it is hard to say what is "reasonable". Induction is reasonable on daily life, even if we don't know we are applying it. For example, if a drink stall has served you good coffee twice, it seems reasonable to expect that it would serve you good coffee the third time. In this case, applying similar assumptions to all other physical laws is just using induction on a bigger scale.
From the opposing point of view, however, science has only tested its laws for a particular period of time, and thus has only a very small number of data points regarding how the physical laws are affected by the age of the universe. As such, science still cannot reasonably extrapolate that that physical laws that work now would have worked in the past.
We must concede that scientists are human as well. A coherent set of beliefs supported by a few "axioms" is a nice thing to have, and shaking the foundations of natural philosophy with some metaphysical "what if" is hardy worth the trouble.
"Mr Einstein, maybe E=mc²+Rjc³, just that R happens to be zero?"
Saturday, January 31, 2009
A short discussion on free will
D: As a presbyterian, my belief is that God is all-knowing because He had created this world with a predetermined future. In a sense, you still have free will and control over your actions, it's just that the outcomes have been predetermined.
Z: No, that can't be free will. If it is predetermined, then it means that I am forced by God to do what he "knows" I'll do next.
X: But having someone know that you would do something doesn't mean that you have no choice. Suppose you have a very good friend who knows that you would always buy coffee when you are eating at this place. So when you goes to this place, your friend already knows that you would buy coffee. If it turns out that you do buy coffee, does that mean that you have no choice? No! It's just that your good friend happens to know your preferences very well. Perhaps God just happens to know your preferences better?
Z: But God is the one who determines my preferences, and that leaves me with no free will, as He has manipulated all our actions and intentions! (But free will is the ability to choose what you prefer, no?)
D: What is manipulation? Suppose a girl scout tries to sell you a box of cookies for 10 bucks. You refuse, but she asks if you would donate $2 instead. Is this manipulation?
Z: No.
D: What if I tell you that actually, the girl scout actually has no intention of selling the cookies; she knows that if she does this, the likelihood of getting a $2 donation is higher than if she hadn't tried selling you the cookies in the first place.
Z: Yes, then it is manipulation.
D: What if, actually, the girl scout didn't know about this phenomenon; she was just following instructions from her leader, who happened to know about this phenomenon?
Z: Well, then I've been manipulated by the leader, but not by the scout.
X: What if the leader isn't sure if it works? Suppose it works in some cities and doesn't work in some. Does whether it is considered as "manipulation" depend on which city you happen to be in?
"EOCC fall in now."
D: As a presbyterian, my belief is that God is all-knowing because He had created this world with a predetermined future. In a sense, you still have free will and control over your actions, it's just that the outcomes have been predetermined.
Z: No, that can't be free will. If it is predetermined, then it means that I am forced by God to do what he "knows" I'll do next.
X: But having someone know that you would do something doesn't mean that you have no choice. Suppose you have a very good friend who knows that you would always buy coffee when you are eating at this place. So when you goes to this place, your friend already knows that you would buy coffee. If it turns out that you do buy coffee, does that mean that you have no choice? No! It's just that your good friend happens to know your preferences very well. Perhaps God just happens to know your preferences better?
Z: But God is the one who determines my preferences, and that leaves me with no free will, as He has manipulated all our actions and intentions! (But free will is the ability to choose what you prefer, no?)
D: What is manipulation? Suppose a girl scout tries to sell you a box of cookies for 10 bucks. You refuse, but she asks if you would donate $2 instead. Is this manipulation?
Z: No.
D: What if I tell you that actually, the girl scout actually has no intention of selling the cookies; she knows that if she does this, the likelihood of getting a $2 donation is higher than if she hadn't tried selling you the cookies in the first place.
Z: Yes, then it is manipulation.
D: What if, actually, the girl scout didn't know about this phenomenon; she was just following instructions from her leader, who happened to know about this phenomenon?
Z: Well, then I've been manipulated by the leader, but not by the scout.
X: What if the leader isn't sure if it works? Suppose it works in some cities and doesn't work in some. Does whether it is considered as "manipulation" depend on which city you happen to be in?
"EOCC fall in now."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
It is about time that I embarrass my future self again. Obviously I do not know better than to do otherwise. Yet.
Every few years, I get a feeling that I have always been wrong, and become embarrassed for what I have stood for. I would wonder, "Why did I say so much, or do so much, without further thinking?" Then proceed on to expound on my new-found world view. Revision of my world view would often coincide with a period of emo-ness. (As of yet, I am unclear of the casual relation.)
Nevertheless, I am still tempted to write down my beliefs, just to make some sense my thoughts.
In J1, I have formulated a philosophy that I still hold today. The self is a distinct and separate being at every point in time, and it makes sense for us to treat our past and future selves as other people whom you happen to understand quite well, but not completely.
Right before KI A levels, I came up with the idea that all our beliefs are based on transcendental arguments, combined with faith in one of the three ontologies (materialism, dualism, idealism) that form a coherent set of self-reinforcing beliefs.
During NS, I had some time to read a few books on psychology. Here are the few things I found particularly disturbing:
-People with very different brains(due to damage or otherwise) view the world very differently.
-People can be happy or unhappy despite their circumstances, and they may not be in control.
-People are born with different temperaments which are difficult to change.
-People may not be conscious of the way they make decisions.
-People act largely based on how they feel. How they feel is based on temperament and circumstances. While there may exist options that are more expedient, they are not equally accessible to people of different temperaments.
-People don't know what makes them happy, especially in the future.
Ok, they all seem rather obvious. They still leave some questions open.
-Can we ever justify our actions? Are principles merely personal preferences?
-To what extent should we pursue happiness?
-If altruism is a biological trait, does that mean that some people are inclined to be more altruistic than others? If good deeds do not make one feel good, is one right in not doing them?
-To what extent can, and should we tamper with our own psyche? Is unconscious influence on others a form of tact or is it outright manipulation?
A wizard has turned you into a whale.
Is this awesome? Y/N
Every few years, I get a feeling that I have always been wrong, and become embarrassed for what I have stood for. I would wonder, "Why did I say so much, or do so much, without further thinking?" Then proceed on to expound on my new-found world view. Revision of my world view would often coincide with a period of emo-ness. (As of yet, I am unclear of the casual relation.)
Nevertheless, I am still tempted to write down my beliefs, just to make some sense my thoughts.
In J1, I have formulated a philosophy that I still hold today. The self is a distinct and separate being at every point in time, and it makes sense for us to treat our past and future selves as other people whom you happen to understand quite well, but not completely.
Right before KI A levels, I came up with the idea that all our beliefs are based on transcendental arguments, combined with faith in one of the three ontologies (materialism, dualism, idealism) that form a coherent set of self-reinforcing beliefs.
During NS, I had some time to read a few books on psychology. Here are the few things I found particularly disturbing:
-People with very different brains(due to damage or otherwise) view the world very differently.
-People can be happy or unhappy despite their circumstances, and they may not be in control.
-People are born with different temperaments which are difficult to change.
-People may not be conscious of the way they make decisions.
-People act largely based on how they feel. How they feel is based on temperament and circumstances. While there may exist options that are more expedient, they are not equally accessible to people of different temperaments.
-People don't know what makes them happy, especially in the future.
Ok, they all seem rather obvious. They still leave some questions open.
-Can we ever justify our actions? Are principles merely personal preferences?
-To what extent should we pursue happiness?
-If altruism is a biological trait, does that mean that some people are inclined to be more altruistic than others? If good deeds do not make one feel good, is one right in not doing them?
-To what extent can, and should we tamper with our own psyche? Is unconscious influence on others a form of tact or is it outright manipulation?
A wizard has turned you into a whale.
Is this awesome? Y/N
Friday, January 09, 2009
I accidentally caught a glimpse of "Tuan2 Yuan2 Fan4" (Reunion Dinner) on TV, and I'm absolutely hooked on it! The plot and dialogue is like 100X more plausible and life-like than "Little Nonya" (Seriously, does yueniang haveany flaws, save the lack of superstrength and laser vision? Ah yes, she can't fly. Right.)
Yes, so I'll be piously glued to the TV everyday 9 pm to get my daily dose of YAYA! And yes, I shall dedicate the rest of this post to YAYA, 'cos she TOTALLY steals the show!!
Ok, so the character YAYA is a precocious primary two girl who gets high from using idioms and cheem vocabulary in daily banter("Did I just use another idiom? YES!!", and she insists on calling her mother "Mu3 Qing1" *shudder*. )What she says are obviously too mature for someone her age, which makes her really REALLY cool! Like, "Mother(yes, she said mu qing), have you cooled down? Once you have done so, allow me to analyse the situation for you. At the current stage, ...Blah..."
OH. MY. GOD.
Plus, the actor is very natural with her obviously-too-mature lines, and is ~~~~~~~shHOooOOOOOoooOO~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~cUUUUuuuUUUTTTTTTE~~~~~ showing her milk teeth and dimple whenver she grins! you just can't help but <33 a kid with a disarming grin --> *^_^* <--- and is, in my opinion, the MOST situationally aware character in the entire show!!!! (NOBODY deserves to miss the scene where she chased away the loan sharks. by herself. with just a notebook and pen and her wits. yes, she's just that awesome.
I really hopes that she gets more air time on the subsequent episodes. Sadly, the "star interaction" thingy at 3pm tomorrow for "Tuan Yuan Fan" doesn't include YAYA. :<
Yes, so I'll be piously glued to the TV everyday 9 pm to get my daily dose of YAYA! And yes, I shall dedicate the rest of this post to YAYA, 'cos she TOTALLY steals the show!!
Ok, so the character YAYA is a precocious primary two girl who gets high from using idioms and cheem vocabulary in daily banter("Did I just use another idiom? YES!!", and she insists on calling her mother "Mu3 Qing1" *shudder*. )What she says are obviously too mature for someone her age, which makes her really REALLY cool! Like, "Mother(yes, she said mu qing), have you cooled down? Once you have done so, allow me to analyse the situation for you. At the current stage, ...Blah..."
OH. MY. GOD.
Plus, the actor is very natural with her obviously-too-mature lines, and is ~~~~~~~shHOooOOOOOoooOO~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~cUUUUuuuUUUTTTTTTE~~~~~ showing her milk teeth and dimple whenver she grins! you just can't help but <33 a kid with a disarming grin --> *^_^* <--- and is, in my opinion, the MOST situationally aware character in the entire show!!!! (NOBODY deserves to miss the scene where she chased away the loan sharks. by herself. with just a notebook and pen and her wits. yes, she's just that awesome.
I really hopes that she gets more air time on the subsequent episodes. Sadly, the "star interaction" thingy at 3pm tomorrow for "Tuan Yuan Fan" doesn't include YAYA. :<
Sunday, January 04, 2009
And so I met up with ziLin (now zi lin) today, and it is quite an interesting exchange. I learnt a bit about US politics and US culture, and a bit of psychology. I used to dabble a lot into philosophy because I thought we could find out a lot about ourselves through introspection, but now that I'm introduced to psychology, maybe philosophy isn't such a good avenue anymore.
Much like how science has taken the place of "natural philosophy", it seems like psychology taking the place of certain aspects of philosophy as well, such as philosophy of mind, aesthetics and ethics(though there is still the is-ought problem). It's like, the COOLEST part of philosophy, and you don't have to resort to lame assumptions like, "I'm sure we can all agree that nobody would think it is right to torture an innocent baby." or that "Nobody really thinks that Duchamp's fountain is beautiful right?" Yes, so psychology gives you answers that you can do something about, and not depressing like stuff like "so what if happiness is just an illusion?"
And there are two videos related to what we talked about today.
Rubber hand illusion:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCQbygjG0RU
Related, this is quite funny:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsT-KZpkgrw
Not so related, having a frightening/thrilling experience next to a potential mate gives the illusion of greater attractiveness of the other party. Could that be why James Bonds gets to shag so much?
Much like how science has taken the place of "natural philosophy", it seems like psychology taking the place of certain aspects of philosophy as well, such as philosophy of mind, aesthetics and ethics(though there is still the is-ought problem). It's like, the COOLEST part of philosophy, and you don't have to resort to lame assumptions like, "I'm sure we can all agree that nobody would think it is right to torture an innocent baby." or that "Nobody really thinks that Duchamp's fountain is beautiful right?" Yes, so psychology gives you answers that you can do something about, and not depressing like stuff like "so what if happiness is just an illusion?"
And there are two videos related to what we talked about today.
Rubber hand illusion:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCQbygjG0RU
Related, this is quite funny:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsT-KZpkgrw
Not so related, having a frightening/thrilling experience next to a potential mate gives the illusion of greater attractiveness of the other party. Could that be why James Bonds gets to shag so much?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)