Are the limits to human knowledge

[rat_spit]

@Cognostic

Something you do frequently and seem to know very little about.)

We don’t have to demonstrate that space is in fact infinite to posit that possibility; it simply follows from the nature of space.

Nor do I have to demonstrate that we can in fact travel to other stars in the present moment to posit that it may be possible in the future. It simply follows from technological trends. The nature of technology and its ongoing growth and advancement points to the possibility of interstellar space travel.

If you think I’m pulling that out of my ass, whatever. You don’t get to set limitations on what is possible in my mind and I don’t set limitations on what is possible in yours. To go about imposing limitations on others possibilities is a form of tyranny. If you want to be a tyrant, that’s your possibility. Go for it.

[Cognostic]

@rat_spit

We don’t have to demonstrate that space is in fact infinite to posit that possibility; it simply follows from the nature of space.

No, it doesn’t. You made a claim you need to demonstrate what in the hell you are on about. It’s possible there is a big brick wall out there preventing space from moving beyond it. Now, that claim is every bit as fucking stupid as the one you just made. Actually it is less stupid because we know brick walls exist, and we know they can be made to surround things like ‘space.’ Ratty… you just don’t have a clue and what is sad about that is that you have been hanging around here for years and still picked up NOTHING. How in the FUCK do you do that? What is so fundamentally wrong with your ability to think rationally that you can not see beyond your own ignorance even once?

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Non-sequitur. Google it.

It’s actually quite relevant. You don’t seem to understand the definition of “possibility”. I was attempting to help you see through the fog of ignorance.

@Sheldon

Then stop making false and unevidenced claims about it in a debate forum.

Nothing false about positing the possibility of space travel in the future. Especially when technology trends point to it; especially when we’ve travelled to the moon already; Especially when the very survival of the species depends on it.

@Sheldon

You claime dinterstellar travel was possible, and that claim is science fiction.

No. You’re the one claiming it’s impossible.

@Sheldon

Start a thread then, this one’s taken.

Really? Who the fuck do you think started this thread you butt pirate?

@Sheldon

As am I, and that’s why I know you;re bullshitting when you claim interstellar travel by humans is possible.

I think you’ve got your ass in a noose. It’s not possible in the present moment. It is a future possibility. I can’t help it if you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say it was possible “at the moment”. I said we’ve got 5.5 billion years to figure it out. I said we’ve got fusion power on the horizon. I said we’ve got the ability to freeze and reanimate the building blocks of life. It exists as a future possibility. If you’re so fucking dense to think that I meant it was possible right fucking now, that’s not my problem. Take a number.

@Sheldon

Travelling to the moon was not possible for the people who lived before we knew how to fucking do it.

It wasn’t possible and yet they tried and succeeded? What fucking planet are you on, Shelly?

@Sheldon

If you actually read my posts you’d have known this when I initially responded.

So, basically you can’t win one argument so you just pick the battle you think you can win? I’m not even fighting the same battle as you, bud.

@Sheldon

You don’t get to make claims and arguments then insist people only address what you want,

Read the OP. Read the title of the OP. Read post 25 where I explicitly reply to my own question with a relevant suggestion. You’ve derailed this thread long enough.

@Sheldon

And I should care because???

You shouldn’t. But if you’re going to post in a debate forum where the bloody title of the thread is “are there limitations to what humans can know (not “do” … “know”)” then be relevant.

@Sheldon

Straw man, since I never claimed you cared, I said it summed up where we were.

You’re in the wrong line. Take a ticket from the front and get into the right line. Or don’t line up at all.

@Sheldon

I never claimed space travel wasn’t possible, I repudiated your claim that interstellar travel was possible.

Holy shit. So, just so we’re clear … are you differentiating space travel from interstellar space travel - or am I just hallucinating?

@Sheldon

however debate requires reciprocity

Debate also requires that you address the question being asked. If you’re incapable of understanding an argument, don’t repudiate it.

@Sheldon

“The speeds required for interstellar travel in a human lifetime far exceed what current methods of space travel can provide. Even with a hypothetically perfectly efficient propulsion system, the kinetic energy corresponding to those speeds is enormous by today’s standards of energy development.”

You’ve assumed I’ve been referring to doing the fucking thing tomorrow. Not my problem that you’ve made this assumption. I clearly stated that we have 5.5 billion years to achieve interstellar space travel and that, given this time frame, it is possible that we, as a species, will achieve it. Technology is only improving, and given the advancing nature of technology, including the potentials for new propulsion systems, the possibility of interstellar travel is real.

Can we do it today? Tomorrow? No. I never implied that we could.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

@Cognostic

Do you understand that a possibility has to be demonstrated before it can be considered?

Is that so? It’s possible I guess. Care to demonstrate your meaning with an example of how this is true? I don’t quite follow your logic.

Why would the claim something is possible not carry the same burden of proof as any other claim?

@rat_spit

We don’t have to demonstrate that space is in fact infinite to posit that possibility;

You would need to demonstrate it is possible though, otherwise you cannot assert that it is.

@rat_spit

Nor do I have to demonstrate that we can in fact travel to other stars in the present moment to posit that it may be possible in the future.

Firsty you claimed it was possible, but yes if you’re making a claim something is going to be possible, that claim carries the same burden of proof as any other claim, how do you know it may be possible in the future?

@rat_spit

The nature of technology and its ongoing growth and advancement points to the possibility of interstellar space travel.

I am dubious, specifically what technology are you citing as evidence humans can survive travel to solar systems many light years from our own?

@rat_spit

You don’t get to set limitations on what is possible in my mind

Of course not, unless of course you express them, on here, then they’re fair game obviously.

@rat_spit

Especially when technology trends point to it; especially when we’ve travelled to the moon already; Especially when the very survival of the species depends on it.

What technology suggests humans will ever be able to travel between stars? The moon is the closest thing to our planet in our own solar system, it’s a paltry 384,400 km away. We can reach it in days? We are talking about light years to the nearest theoretically habitable planets, so that is a pretty asinine comparison.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

You claime dinterstellar travel was possible, and that claim is science fiction.

No. You’re the one claiming it’s impossible.

Unless we are able to do it, or it has it been achieved, then by definition it is currently impossible?

@rat_spit

I didn’t say it was possible “at the moment”.

really, are you sure…

@rat_spit

I’m not here to argue about whether interstellar travel is “possible”. Clearly it is.

Oh dear…

@rat_spit

So, basically you can’t win one argument so you just pick the battle you think you can win?

You think it’s more sensible to disagree with things one doesn’t understand? Rather than argue against things one sees are poorly reasoned?

@rat_spit

Holy shit. So, just so we’re clear … are you differentiating space travel from interstellar space travel - or am I just hallucinating?

Well obviously, since we have and can achieve space travel, but not interstellar travel, I am starting to think possible doesn’t mean what you think it does. How is travelling a mere 62 miles remotely comparable to travelling light years away? I am starting to think this is an elaborate windup again.

@rat_spit

Debate also requires that you address the question being asked. If you’re incapable of understanding an argument, don’t repudiate it.

You might do well to take that advice yourself, seriously. You just compared interstellar travel to travelling 62 miles and leaving the earth’s atmosphere, just saying.

@rat_spit

You’ve assumed I’ve been referring to doing the fucking thing tomorrow.

No I did not, this is a lame and pretty obvious straw man you’ve created. You also claimed it was “clearly possible”, you never mentioned the future, (I have quoted you above), but even so you cannot demonstrate it will be possible in the future either. I mean you seem genuinely shocked in your previous post, that I was differentiating between travelling a mere 62 miles, and leaving the earth’s atmosphere (space travel) and travelling many light years away (interstellar travel). That doesn’t suggest you have a basic grasp of where the relative technologies are.

@rat_spit

I clearly stated that we have 5.5 billion years to achieve interstellar space travel and that, given this time frame,

And you know this how? That is roughly how long our star will live, our planet’s atmosphere for example will be gone long before then, and at the rate we are using fossil fuels they won’t last even a thousand years let alone billions. We live on a planet with finite resources, and an exponentially increasing human population, we also have a climate change crisis of our making, so your claim seems pretty facile to be honest.

@rat_spit

Can we do it today? Tomorrow? No. I never implied that we could.

@rat_spit

I’m not here to argue about whether interstellar travel is “possible”. Clearly it is.

Hmm…

[Cognostic]

Ratty, ratty, ratty… how have you lasted on this site? Over and over and over people have demonstrated the path to logical discourse and reason. Still you are incapable of seeing what is going on around you. How is that possible? How do you not yet understand that all assertions come with a burden of proof? How do you not yet get that? All claims require evidence to be considered true. All of them.

[Quim]

@Cognostic

How do you not yet understand that all assertions come with a burden of proof? How do you not yet get that? All claims require evidence to be considered true. All of them.

Well, you still need to provide evidence that you possess any subjective experience and are not merely a zombie, as claiming to have subjective experience is a significant assertion.

This statement serves as a noteworthy illustration of a limitation in our understanding.

[Cognostic]

@Quim

Well, you still need to provide evidence that you possess any subjective experience and are not merely a zombie, as claiming to have subjective experience is a significant assertion.

Your constant shifting of the burden of proof is tiresome.

[Sheldon]

@Quim

Well, you still need to provide evidence that you possess any subjective experience and are not merely a zombie, as claiming to have subjective experience is a significant assertion.

This statement serves as a noteworthy illustration of a limitation in our understanding.

Wrong again, since the claim that we might be “merely zombies”, also carries a burden of proof, and so I need not demonstrate it false at all, since it is presented without any objective evidence I can simply disbelieve it.

quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur

You are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, it is a common error many people make when they are emotionally invested in a particular belief.

[Quim]

@Sheldon

since the claim that we might be “merely zombies”, also carries a burden of proof,

Yes, the burden of proof required is the same as proving that you are sentient.

However, that is not the main focus of my point. My main point is that this serves as an illustration of the limitations in our knowledge.

[Sheldon]

@Quim

@Sheldon

since the claim that we might be “merely zombies”, also carries a burden of proof,

Yes, the burden of proof required is the same as proving that you are sentient.

However, that is not the main focus of my point. My main point is that this serves as an illustration of the limitations in our knowledge.

Where we differ is that when I meet that epistemological limit, I stop making assertions, and withhold belief. As I said why would one believe anything they admit they can know nothing about. it’s rhetorical now btw…

[Quim]

@Sheldon

Where we differ is that when I meet that epistemological limit, I stop making assertions, and withhold belief. As I said why would one believe anything they admit they can know nothing about.

Perhaps because the epistemological limit pertains to the limitations of language rather than the limitations of reality?

[Sheldon]

Either way why would anyone continue to make assertions and base beliefs beyond that epistemological limit, whatever you believed the cause of your ignorance to be?

If you’re suggesting a hypothetical scenario where we may have objective evidence or sound argument, but don’t possess sufficient linguistic skills to convey this, then I am very dubious, because If something can’t be accurately and “relatively” simply explained, then the obvious inference is they don’t understand it themselves. Again my default position is to withhold belief from any claim until they can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence.

Religions and religious apologetics is awash with appeals to mystery, they have no explanatory powers, so I lend them no credence.

[Cognostic]

@Quim

Perhaps because the epistemological limit pertains to the limitations of language rather than the limitations of reality?

No! It’s because, without facts or evidence there is no reason to move further. If there were observations, facts, evidence, we would find a way to ‘language them’ and explore them. Just like we have done with black holes, the Higgs Boson, and other amazing discoveries. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

[Quim]

@Sheldon

Religions and religious apologetics is awash with appeals to mystery, they have no explanatory powers, so I lend them no credence.

Perhaps they appeal to something that cannot be expressed in language but exerts a long-term influence on societies. I’m merely suggesting the possibility and not making any definitive statements. There’s no need to attack or criticize me for expressing this idea; it’s simply a speculative thought.

[Quim]

@Cognostic

No! It’s because, without facts or evidence there is no reason to move further.

Perhaps the issue lies not within the facts themselves but rather in the interpretation of those facts. It is possible that science, the very mechanism employed to explore and comprehend the mechanical aspects of reality, may be inadequate in addressing the intelligent dimensions of reality.

Please refrain from condemning me for merely proposing this possibility.

[CyberLN]

@Quim

Perhaps because the epistemological limit pertains to the limitations of language rather than the limitations of reality?

Perhaps the limitations of language are merely due to a limited vocabulary.

[CyberLN]

@Quim

There’s no need to attack or criticize me for expressing this idea; it’s simply a speculative thought.

This is a debate forum. There is EVERY reason to do so.

[Cognostic]

@Quim

I’m merely suggesting the possibility

Why don’t you get this… possibility needs to be DEMONSTRATED Possibility of what? Some amorphous thing with no evidence whatsoever, anywhere? You’re making no sense. m,

[Cognostic]

@CyberLN

@Quim

There’s no need to attack or criticize me for expressing this idea; it’s simply a speculative thought.

This is a debate forum. There is EVERY reason to do so.

Now I think that is hilarious considering my previous posts. LOL! You Go Cyber! Just keep those insults flowing!

[Sheldon]

@Quim

@Sheldon

Religions and religious apologetics is awash with appeals to mystery, they have no explanatory powers, so I lend them no credence.

Perhaps they appeal to something that cannot be expressed in language but exerts a long-term influence on societies. I’m merely suggesting the possibility and not making any definitive statements. There’s no need to attack or criticize me for expressing this idea; it’s simply a speculative thought.

Firstly I attack ideas and arguments, never people, well not unless I am severely provoked, and even then not that often.

However as I have explained in this thread to another poster, claiming something is possible or that it may be possible, carries an epistemological burden of proof, it cannot rationally be asserted or even implied just because we don’t know something is impossible, no matter what Sherlock Holmes says.

@Quim

@Cognostic

No! It’s because, without facts or evidence there is no reason to move further.

Perhaps the issue lies not within the facts themselves but rather in the interpretation of those facts. It is possible that science, the very mechanism employed to explore and comprehend the mechanical aspects of reality, may be inadequate in addressing the intelligent dimensions of reality.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this hypothetical idea? After all it is obvious that science can’t study what provides no data, and that non-existent or imaginary things don’t provide data. Blaming science because it can’t breed unicorns seems like poor reasoning tbh.

@Cognostic

Why don’t you get this… possibility needs to be DEMONSTRATED

Exactly, and sticking the words may or might in a claim doesn’t evade this burden of proof.