Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

It is a political question essentially.

Ten years after Hans Moravec first published the simulation argument (and three years after its update in Moravec's second full pop science book),[1] the philosopher Nick Bostrom investigated the possibility that we may be living in a simulation.[2] A simplified version of his argument proceeds as such:

i. It is possible that an advanced civilization could create a computer simulation which contains individuals with artificial intelligence (AI).
ii. Such a civilization would likely run many, billions for example, of these simulations (just for fun, for research or any other permutation of possible reasons).
iii. A simulated individual inside the simulation wouldn’t necessarily know that it is inside a simulation — it is just going about its daily business in what it considers to be the "real world."

Then the ultimate question is — if one accepts that the above premises are at least possible — which of the following is more likely?

a. We are the one civilization which develops AI simulations and happens not to be in one itself?
b. We are one of the many (billions) of simulations that has run? (Remember point iii.)

In greater detail, his argument attempts to prove the trichotomy, either that:

1. intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality (assuming that this is possible in principle); or
2. races who do reach such a sophisticated level do not tend to run such simulations; or
3. we are almost certainly living in such a simulation

To clarify my first quote (it did not entirely post, which is in bold):

Quote:

Observing the attraction of mass is direct. The force of gravity is the theory for why we believe mass behaves this way. We have never observed a particle candidate for a graviton. Perhaps someday we will. Even then, gravity will still be a theory, not a law.

By definition, direct observation of attracting bodies of mass is gravitation, and it may also be interpreted theoretically, hence a fundamental force.

It is an empirical fact to humans, however it is exclusive to empiricalism, therefore it cannot be a priori, such a logic.

Logic is general to specific inference, the circle deduces.[/b]

Again, anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.

Empiricalism induces the circle.

Furthermore, you must assume consistency, hence naturalism, however are you certain that backround independent entities, such as the physical constants are consistent, do you not believe in inflation?

If so, what of the consequent conditions, such as the suggested chaotic inflation concepts, the universe may end.

If there is no space, how are intervals operated?

Science existed before the concept of naturalism.

How do you know it is exclusive to human observation? I'm not assuming it isn't, but you're asserting it is.

You brought up William of Ockham earlier, but now you don't seem to get why naturalism is not a mere assumption, it's simply the absence of added clauses. We have no reason to add extra complexity. Your objection to naturalism is that it doesn't fit your aesthetic model of nature.

Naturalism is the logical product when you subtract ego.

I'm not bothered by the universe ending. Should I be?

Seriously, what are you talking about? It's torture trying to read what you're posting here. It seems you're exploring some ideas, and that's great, but you read as if you just took some freshmen college course on epistemology and think you've got the world cornered. Your style of rhetoric is what I call "arguing with the ref." It's a form of intellectual bureaucracy where one party creates meta-arguments on the argument. In this way, the weaker argument can appear to be at par with a superior one because discussion can never approach the topic. Victory is defined as the ability to prevent the other party from presenting their case or letting it be tested.

Your posts are filibusters. Enough. We're here to talk about evolution. Parados nailed you to the wall when you both tried to define micro/macro evolution using speciation but also refused a definition of species. A common error in evolutionary discussion is to thin that evolution is about organisms and lifeforms. It's about genes. As Dawkins famously put it we're "gene machines"--simple vessels for genes. Resistance to evolution is in my opinion often rooted in an anthropomorphic vanity that anything could be greater than a human.

Why even bring that up unless you are merely promoting a red herring?

Naturalism has no more to do with evolution existing than the existence of the tooth fairy does. There can be 40 other planes of existence but evolution would still exist on this plane and still operate in the same fashion.

Also, acknowledge that evolution is subject to time (micro evolutionary process) environmental factors (stimuli), humans growth, hayflick limit ends, senescence occurs, humuns die, generations pass.

Speciation may never occur, I already stated that there is no longer macro selection pressure, therefore anatomical variation may no longer occur, there is no 'extreme' environmental stimulation.

Empiricalism entails naturalistic assumption.

parados has been subjected to a division fallacy, speciation is cognitively synonymous to macro evolution.

Observations of micro evolution is direct, I am not certain if it is macro evolution may be direct, specifically speciation.

That is my objective, to destinguish definitions.

Quote:

How do you know it is exclusive to human observation? I'm not assuming it isn't, but you're asserting it is.

I never stated that it is, it is an empirical fact from a human interpretation, I am not certain how generalisable it is, yet gravitation does not only stimulate observation, it stimulates every sense organ.

Quote:

You brought up William of Ockham earlier, but now you don't seem to get why naturalism is not a mere assumption, it's simply the absence of added clauses. We have no reason to add extra complexity. Your objection to naturalism is that it doesn't fit your aesthetic model of nature.

Naturalism is the logical product when you subtract ego.

Occhams razor is not logical, however it may be interpreted 'rational'.

I never stated it is "mere assumption", it is an assumption suggested by empirical facts, science is conditionally naturalistic to our empirical reality.

Quote:

I'm not bothered by the universe ending. Should I be?

This is a misconception.

Empirical facts are assumed to be consistent in space and time, yet it has been suggested that the universe will end.

If this is the case, how are empirical facts consistent?

Quote:

Seriously, what are you talking about? It's torture trying to read what you're posting here. It seems you're exploring some ideas, and that's great, but you read as if you just took some freshmen college course on epistemology and think you've got the world cornered. Your style of rhetoric is what I call "arguing with the ref." It's a form of intellectual bureaucracy where one party creates meta-arguments on the argument. In this way, the weaker argument can appear to be at par with a superior one because discussion can never approach the topic. Victory is defined as the ability to prevent the other party from presenting their case or letting it be tested.

I will not refute your arguement on the basis of language aquisition.

Quote:

Your posts are filibusters. Enough. We're here to talk about evolution. Parados nailed you to the wall when you both tried to define micro/macro evolution using speciation but also refused a definition of species. A common error in evolutionary discussion is to thin that evolution is about organisms and lifeforms. It's about genes. As Dawkins famously put it we're "gene machines"--simple vessels for genes. Resistance to evolution is in my opinion often rooted in an anthropomorphic vanity that anything could be greater than a human.

Does this also apply to morphology, physiology or biochemistry?

parados has been subjected to a division fallacy, speciation is cognitively synonymous to macro evolution.

I already stated that species may be defined, however not universally, being that it is subjected to scientific fields, such as a geneticist or anthropologist, it is open to interpretation.

The same concept applies to abortion or puberty, how do we measure the spectrum of sentient fetus or a puberscent human?

Did the concept of genetics exist when Darwin constructed the theory of evolution?

Micro evolution exists from reducing the macro evolutionary concept, yet it has also been holistically redefined by such.

Also, acknowledge that evolution is subject to time (micro evolutionary process) environmental factors (stimuli), humans growth, hayflick limit ends, senescence occurs, humuns die, generations pass.

Speciation may never occur, I already stated that there is no longer macro selection pressure, therefore anatomical variation may no longer occur, there is no 'extreme' environmental stimulation.

You specifically named one species--humans--in your statement. Why?

Gravity does not stimulate every sense organ.

I disagree. I think empirical facts are very transient. This is the inevitable product of gaining more information. Drawing an example from celestial mechanics:

First, the sun and moon rose from one horizon and set on the other of a flat earth. Then the sun and moon orbited the round earth. Then the earth was on an orbit around the sun, and the moon around the earth. Then orbits were elliptical, not circular. Then the orbits were oscillating on an elliptical mean orbit. We still don't have an explicit solution. We know much about orbits, but we are learning more. We even know that what we accept as fact right now is not fully true. Despite this, we aren't troubled by our "empirical facts" constantly changing on this matter. The fact that new models involving greater amounts of data and complexity will be better but ultimately wrong (in the sense that they will not be 100% accurate) does not mean that we are on the wrong track, nor does it mean that we are no better off than when we thought the sun went around the earth.

You waxing poetic about if empiricism proves empiricism doesn't provide a challenge to what empiricism does provide.

More data, and better tooling, that's how we discover. Stop navel gazing.

Does what apply? Evolution?

Because you say so.

Still doesn't matter. Even if speciation was universally defined, evolution would be a topic that occurs on the genetic level, not at the species level. Mind you, an organism has it's genes, but it also has it's recessive genes. So if you're only limiting yourself to speciation, you'll leave out a huge component of evolution that happens at a level more fundamental than a full organism.

How would this apply to abortion? Are you saying that sentience is the fulcrum on such a topic? Perhaps on a political/social level, but from a scientific one, you're begging.

Because you say so.

You're incorrect. Fitness is how well a species genetics are adapted to their environment. We've become a powerful species in that we can effect our environment to fit our individual genetic needs. This does not mean that there is no selection pressure, it simply means that our fit is unlike most other species.

Consider that with the invention of automated factories we do less physical labor, and labor has a real effect on our environment. This means that many of the genetic traits that once made for a stable environment may not provide the greatest fit in the new paradigm.