From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > On Wed, 12 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> I disagree. Probability for me is part of the language of math. I am   
   >>> of the opinion that it only has validity, when used for things ehich   
   >>> can be verified against evidence, _unless_ we're talking pure   
   >>> mathematics, in which case (correct me if I am wrong) you will   
   >>> probably talk about proof.   
   >>   
   >> How likely do you think it is that the moon existed before there was   
   >> any life on earth? We have no direct evidence of such. We have to   
   >> theorise.   
   >   
   > True... but the question is meaningless unless part of a theory that   
   > yields predictions and can be tested with empirical evidence. Strictly   
   > speaking, we will never know. But we can definitely have an idea about   
   > it, but that's all it is. An idea.   
      
   Why can't you say it is more likely the moon existed and continued to   
   exist? Afterall as Hume pointed out, generally speaking the future   
   resembles the past. Or at least I think he did.   
      
   I think there is an inconsistency lurking somewhere in what you   
   say. Consider the question: How am I affected by electrons? You ought to   
   say in no way at all can electrons affect us, any more than a parallel   
   universe, as electrons cannot be perceived in any way. And yet, you   
   accept electron theory because of its predictions, but you do not accept   
   inflation theory because of its predictions.   
      
   >   
   >>> From a psychological and pragmatic point of view... go ahead, be my   
   >>> guest!   
   >>>   
   >>> I must thank you for pointing out my errors in words. I am not a   
   >>> native english speaker, and since I stopped doing academic   
   >>> philosophy many decades ago, I allow myself the luxury of being a   
   >>> bit sloppy. This is of course not good style. I appreciate your   
   >>> corrections! =)   
   >>   
   >> I am not sure what the connection with religion is, but you have   
   >> raised it a few times, perhaps you should explain?   
   >   
   > Sure! When multiple world interpretation guys make inferences from   
   > equations to phenomena which can never be tested or verified   
   > empirically, they leave science behind.   
   >   
   > I have noticed that it opens up for them, the vista of open   
   > individualism, immortality, infinite universes which yields infinite   
   > probabilities of everything existing.   
   >   
   > For them, these non-verifiable thought experiments, take the place of   
   > religion.  It gives them the psychological comfort of some kind of   
   > immortality.   
   >   
   > Other humans, less wise in the ways of science, read the book, and   
   > learn that we are immortal and will go to paradise.   
   >   
   > Same reflex, different theology. Do I make more sense?   
      
   Yes, this is a specific example of a more general case which is that   
   people tend to believe what they want to believe. They start with their   
   desired belief, and then they work backwards to construct a train of   
   reasoning to justify it.   
      
   But this isn't the motivation of scientists who came up with inflation   
   theory. They were trying to solve problems in the previous theories and   
   explain things which weren't explained. Parallel universes is just a   
   consequence of the theory.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)