It's funny, because Newtonian physics and modern theoretical physics give exactly the same results at "real-world" scales. Yet both systems of thought rely on completely different sets of assumptions.

Let's ignore humans and go with a space alien thought experiment. You don't think it's possible, even in theory, that they could have a different set of assumptions that yield similar conclusions?

If we think of verbal predictions of the world's behavior as "outputs" of a process, and sensory data as "inputs," and the foundational assumptions as part of the "programming" of the process itself...

It's not possible to have two different programs that deliver the same output given the same input?

Also, if we stick to the space alien thought experiment, their inputs may be fundamentally different. Maybe instead of vision they have some kind of sonar. Maybe they communicate in a way that's hard for us to understand - and that doesn't qualify as "language" in the sense of discrete symbols. This would mean their inputs would have to be different even if their specific predictions were identical to ours - would they need the same assumptions?

I'm not convinced our foundational assumptions are correct, not even the ones that are legitimately indubitable. From a practical standpoint, these assumptions are probably adaptive mechanisms of our biology, and the predictions they allow us to make are really predictions about our experiences and our environments (and only to the extent that we can adapt to our circumstances on the basis of those predictions).

When we start dealing with "reality," by finding a way to translate low-level physical "truths" into experiences we can interpret, we end up with apparent contradictions and mind ****s. We can (luckily) use math to make certain predictions about low-level physical events, but we have to jettison our intuitive understanding in order to do so. Even the question of which interactions we are able to predict (and which may be fundamentally unpredictable) seems to have a strange answer.

Quantum physics has thrown everything - our sense of time, our notion of "cause and effect," our presumptions of subjective awareness, and our own perceptual abilities - into question. Can you find a way to predict the results of experiments like these without making a shambles of your explanatory mechanisms? What we learn about psychology, neurophysiology, and so on isn't comforting, either.

It's only by some miracle that our basic mathematical assumptions have been preserved, so that we can even discuss the matter on any level. But even experts on theoretical physics can't seem to discuss their ideas in any language except mathematics - that provides the only context for interpreting this stuff in which shared assumptions really exist. Any other way tends to yield contradictions.

But outside of math - a single set of assumptions that is necessary to predict either experiential events or physical events at a high level of abstraction (depending on what you mean by "the world") hardly seems likely to me.

Interesting post. I agree my use is anthropomorphic. These 'foundational assumptions' are the programming that humanoid hardware invariably gets from the world. The basic invariance of human neurology and e.g. the empirical support for a 'deep structure' common to all languages justifies talking about such a thing, I think.

On the other hand, the analogy to 'programming' is tendentious. It needs language-forming processes to have a strong heuristic/axiomatic flavor. (If they don't, where do we insert these alleged 'assumptions'?)

If we decide to throw out this kind of analogy, I think we have to also abandon any strong notion of 'learning' about the world. (What is being learned, if not some sort of heuristic or axiom?!) Similarly, the concept of 'certainty' becomes obscure except as a rather superficial sort of psychological self-report.

Lol at because there is Evil god exists. Evil is just a word, created by man. Just because a word created by man is used does not mean god exsists. What is right and wrong is only defined by man and the "norm" is defined by what most humans believe to be true. Saying god must exist because evil exists is like saying god must exist because people exist. What a moronic douche. Also to go off on such a "if that means, then this means, then that means" just shows how lacking in evidence and confidence these people really are, to have to come up with such a ridiculous and vage theory as to why god exists.

"Why do you get up in the morning? Why is life worth living? Whom do you choose to love? And why do you believe love matters? Those are not scientific questions."

Yes they are.

Just got through Dawkins opening speach as well, IMO he did a great job.

Well Craig could just throw down the microphone and turn it into a snake, but that would be a little overbearing.

You're just pointing out even more limitations on our knowledge. I'm not particularly concerned with the concept of certainty as normally understood - I think it's incoherent. I'm not saying we should define it based purely on our "sense of being certain," but all introspection seems relatively superficial if you ask me. I think we've learned more about human thought in the last decade by observing the brain than we have in the last millennium by observing our thoughts.

These debates really have lost their charm over the ages.

He would actually need to then rub it's tummy and gather some flasks in addition to the Snake Oil For Sale yo' sign he would need to erect obv.