zurew

I said that (as a point to outline how silly it is to claim that one specific metaphysical stance is necessary to practice or to progress), not you - that was my original point that you responded to (where I outlined what issue I had with Leo) Thats right "regardless whether its true or false" - thats my point. It doesn't matter what kind of metaphysical beliefs you hold (at least in the vast majority of the cases), you still need to run those experiments and you still need to make those calculations etc.

There are certain metaphysical claims where its somewhat clear how they would limit the application of science - but its in the vast majority of the cases they don't seem to be relevant at all. For example, you can have any view you want on the metaphysics of free will - it wont change anything relevant how science is done. You can think a traditional God created the world, you will still run the experiments, and this is also the case if you are an atheist.

No, not necessarily because they can adapt their frames. They can redefine what they think Christianity is (this is one reason why a good chunk of them accept evolution now). But regardless , your question doesn't interact with the original point - which is the idea that Christianity would be a necessary foundation to do any science - which is obviously a silly claim.

Your claim wasnt just "philosophy of science is important for the progress of science" , because thats a trivial , non-controversial claim and people with completely different metaphysics to you can agree with that. You made specific metaphysical claims ,but didnt connect it back how adopting/understanding those specific claims are relevant to the progression of science.

They don't understand that reality is undefinable. They think they are defining it and they are missing all the most important aspects necessary for understanding reality. You can't just skip all the stuff I talk about. It's all fundamental. It does matter because science has wrong epistemology and wrong ontology, which limits science. Science is fundamentally about understanding reality. Their ability to understand reality is very self-limited. Understanding cannot be reduced to practical measures.

"Look scientist had metaphysical disageements". You think I object to that? Still waiting for you to substantiate and establish how taking the view that finite definitions are possible and that thinking that reality is not infinite prevents scientist from making any progress in science. Because those were your original claims that you are working so hard now to pivot as far away from as you possibly can, so that you dont need to address any of it.

"you need to use my glasses to see any object" But I see objects without those glasses "But my glasses are fundamental, you stupid guy, you havent had your god realization yet, and I dont need to explain or respond to your objection , because im above it"

@Miguel1 Waiting for your tone policing here. Surely this is not belittling and pure rhetoric , right? Like just notice it and think about how the smart enlightened guy didn't provide any substantive response to any of the critcisims. Like you read all that and think "hmm yeah, thats a completely normal response from a guy, who supposed to be very intelligent, secure and highly-conscious" @Leo Gura Dude, dont worry I understand it now, I am a little bit slow, but I get it now - we are supposed to be here to jerk you off, and to validate all your takes, and to validate how conscious and intelligent you are. Like yeah dude, the reason why you don't respond to the criticisms and questions - is surely not because you don't have any response , it can only be because you are above it.

If a Christian would have said what Leo implied (that his specific metaphysics [in the Christian's case Christianity] is whats necessary and fundamental to the progression of science), none of you would have objected to the above. You would understand how silly it is to make the progression of science exclusive to one very specific metaphysical framework.

For example - you can be a Christian and be a scientist who discovers new things. None of this is controversial. Progress is compatible with a big chunk of different frameworks.

Yes but they dont necessarily need to question metaphysical assumption for that , and they certainly dont need to switch from being physicalist to be idealists or vice-versa.

How does being turquoise helps with doing science?

When it comes to the substance based on the things you have said so far, you seem to agree with me and you seem to disagree with Leo. Notice that he wont make an argument that establish how his metaphysics is central to science or to the progression of science.

Cool, looking forward to reading your posts ( not because you agree with me here, but because you have things to say that are outside from the usual things most actualizers have to say).

Yes he has that series and I agree with some things that he said there but not all things and he made specific claims in his blogpost and here(in this thread) and I replied to those and now we are here waiting for him to back up his claims about his metaphysics being fundamental to doing science and about knowledge about metaphysics being fundamental to doing science or to any progress in science. Now notice again with your tone policing - you have never ever called out Leo on anything, even though there are many examples where he belittles people and where he uses rhetoric without using substance to substantiate his claims.

Good engagement again, Vynce. Tell me the false things that I said.

Yeah sure, its just that the gravity and the framing of the arguments would be different. If I would want to make a "profound" blogpost I would do my due diligence beforehand and not just purely rely on my intuitions , especially if those are central to my argument.

Long time member doesnt mean glazing at everything Leo does or says. Why is it that you have nothing to say when Leo uses a 100 different rhetorical tricks and when he bellitles people , but you are immediately hung up on when someone treats Leo like a normal human being who is not above anyone else?

You would be laughed out of any philosophy of science department for even trying to imply any such thing - since when do you think that one cant hold onto a physicalist metaphysics and make progress in science or since when do we think that observations and equations will just break down under different metaphysics? Like all of this is nonsense and stupid and this is all besides the fact that you strawmanned the fuck out of a lot of people without being able to back up any of it. Do you have data what metaphysical and philosophy of science views do scientists have? No you dont, but you build your whole argument based on your intuition on this.

Note that Einstein didn't know about you and about your metaphysics. Note that science still progressed without your system. Note that you are and your insights are not central to any of this. There is nothing to make a counter-argument to, because you havent made an argument - all you have done so far is a vague gesture towards "scientists stupid and bad, cause they dont follow my metaphysics". Notice that you dont have any good response to the rocket claim and you think that you have provided some kind of deep profound thought in your blogpost (that btw other have already made way before you - so none of that is original to you) and you are stumbled by one simple example. And then you made some claims that you wont back up - like your claim about fundamentality.

Oh yes you can, and you can still send a rocket to the moon without ever studying anything about metaphysics. So no - its not foundational at all.

The government will need to take care of it, but most elites wont give a fuck about any of the chaos.

Power will be defined by having the most intelligent robots. non elites will beg for goods and services , and most elites will self sustain. You can maintain your power without having any customers. As an elite you can have an army of the most intelligent agents protecting you 24/7 and them montioring everything around you. I dont see how any person would be a big threat to them and even if that was true there are ways around it.

Elites wont need customers in order to stay in power or to gain more power. They can just use the best AI model for whatever they want and need. They can stay and be happy in their own closed loop. I don't see at all how they would lose their elite status once there are no more customers. The resource difference will be there , it wont go anywhere and it will just grow given that they will employ AI agents that will get increasingly more intelligent and efficient.