Comment of the week

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 6, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Science is a method, not a result, nor a being. “Science” doesn’t say anything. With highly politicised topics like this, it is not the data that tells the tale, but rather those flawed humans who may or may not appropriately report the data that tells the tale. There has been enough fraud discovered in academia alone, without systemic bias toward a given result, that to fail to question these results is a major failing on the part of anyone who takes them at face value. – tmosley

Comments

PS: Ponder the sides and diagonal of a square, and the ratio of diagonal to side, or the circumference to the diameter of a circle. Or the plot of y = 1/x, and the area under the curve past x = 1, carried out to the point where that area is exactly 1 unit. Then, tell me that sqrt 2, pi and e are not reasonable, real and very important quantities. Just for one application ponder how one so sizes gear teeth to get an exact number that will mesh exactly with those of the teeth of gears on another shaft. Then, think of a car transmission or just the gear train in a fishing reel.kairosfocus_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Box:
Haldane: “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.
The section I bolded suggests that his argument is irrational in the sense that if we have a sound "chemical" process, why would it not be logical? We rely on electrical processes in a computer and we trust them to be logical enough to use in a flight control system on an aircraft. Secondly, it does not address infallibility. Whether he is wrong or right about where his mind comes from, the workings of that mind are identical in that he actually holds the beliefs that he does.Carpathian_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Carpathian:
The point I’m making is that irrational numbers do not reflect reality. It is a kludge that is useful and for all intents and purposes so close to reality that it has allowed us to perform very complex acts of engineering.
Actually, the irrationals and transcendentals are most of the real numbers. They are not kludges. We work with nearby approximations in our calculations, but that is just for calculation. Now as to what Mathematics is, I have said it several times: the logical study of structure and quantity. That logic exists once structures and quantitative aspects exist. And, it constrains what is, based on what is entailed by structures. Hence the power of Mathematics in a cosmos -- an ordered system of reality. As opposed to a chaos. Further to this, it is very reasonable to see that we often recognise and describe structural and quantitative patterns, then discover their logical consequences. Hence, a lot of mathematics is embedded in the structural and quantitative patterns of reality, waiting for us to discover and elucidate through suitably logical exploration. Mathematics, insofar as this obtains, reflects unifying principles embedded in reality and is not an arbitrary imposition on it. And, the Euler expression happens to be a major logical wormhole junction in that process. One that was unexpected, was astonishing when discovered, and still drips with a magic wine of insight to this day. In case you are inclined to doubt and dismiss, I note Wikipedia speaking against ideological interest:
Mathematics (from Greek ?????? máth?ma, “knowledge, study, learning”) is the study of topics such as quantity (numbers),[2] structure,[3] space,[2] and change.[4][5][6] There is a range of views among mathematicians and philosophers as to the exact scope and definition of mathematics.[7][8] Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and use them to formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. When mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature. Through the use of abstraction and logic, mathematics developed from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. Practical mathematics has been a human activity for as far back as written records exist. The research required to solve mathematical problems can take years or even centuries of sustained inquiry.
Another def'n:
math•e•mat•ics (?mæ? ??mæt ?ks) n. 1. (used with a sing. v.) the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically. 2. (used with a sing. or pl. v.) mathematical procedures, operations, or properties. [1350–1400; < Latin < Greek math?matik? (téchn?) scientific (craft) =math?mat- lesson, learning + -ik?, -ic; see -ics] Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
I think you will be able to see that my summary captures the essence: the logical study of structure and quantity. Not everything fits in with pomo thought patterns that decry totalising metanarratives and the like . . . only to necessarily fall on the point of the same rhetorical sword. KFkairosfocus_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic:
What Carpathian is confusing is various numeric systems and outputs that follow from the essence of what is math.
I think I understand what you mean by math now. If I'm right, you're really talking about relationships of properties in the universe that we use numbers to describe. If that is the case, it is a completely separate issue from math. Math is how we describe those relationships and that is why I say that math, as a descriptive tool, is the invention of man. The relationship of forces and their interaction with matter are completely separate and independent of any description of them.Carpathian_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Carpathian #163, My understanding of Haldane's argument:
Haldane: “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.”
Haldane reflects on a belief that is wholly determined by blind stupid material processes. Haldane's assessment is that such a belief has no value; he writes "if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true." IOW if dumb blind matter—opposite to rational deliberation—produces my beliefs then my beliefs are worthless. However, Haldane doesn't hold that his beliefs are worthless, therefor he writes: "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter." [because if it were then my beliefs are worthless]Box_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
Carpathian, an irrational number cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers, a transcendental is not the root of any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. The numbers e and pi are transcendental, and via Euler’s expression are infinitely precisely mutually specified, and yet this is astonishing for they come up in utterly diverse contexts. KF
The point I'm making is that irrational numbers do not reflect reality. It is a kludge that is useful and for all intents and purposes so close to reality that it has allowed us to perform very complex acts of engineering. Being useful however does not point to a divine hand in the creation of math. If math is indeed an integral part of the universe, why can't it accurately describe objects that exist in that same universe? If I gave you C, the circumference of a circle, you could could not accurately tell me D, the diameter, and yet we can look at that circle and see it has a fixed size. Do you think God knows what the diameter actually is? If God has a means of knowing the diameter, why wouldn't we be able to do it if math is built into the universe? Saying that PI is irrational really means it is not expressible by us with our present mathematics.Carpathian_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Box:
No, you don’t agree. In post #135 you wrote: Carpathian #135: Whatever determines my mental processes has no determination on whether I believe them.
That is in response to kairosfocus's quote from Haldane where Haldane claims that his belief is dependent on what has determined his mental processes. Whether a mind is the result of material processes or not, you and I both believe we are right regardless of which one truly is. In the event you are right, I would be wrong but am still able to hold the belief that I am correct. The same applies if the mind is actually the result of materialistic processes, in that you still hold your belief that it isn't. This is why these arguments are wrong. They try to logically tie together two completely separate properties.Carpathian_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

SA: The past is an immaterial concept. velikovskys: Is the source of a river immaterial because you are standing downstream?
You seem to be disagreeing with me here. Could you explain, please?Silver Asiatic_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

vel
Not really, He could just reveal the truth ,that would be more convincing
You're not offering a counterpoint. As I explained, the truth is revealed. What you're saying is "I want all of the truth right now". But consider again, the truth is gradually revealed -- for several reasons. 1. This gives every human generation a chance to learn new things (if it all came "right now" there would be nothing more to explore). 2. The search for the truth is an effort, what comes to us through an effort, work or struggle, is more highly prized than that which is merely a given. 3. In searching for the truth, we are involved and have responsibility. Some don't want to try -- that's a way to judge their character. It's an exercise in moral growth to patiently seek for the truth of things. If God reveals truth gradually, it gives us a chance to grow morally.
Why must nature be incomprehensible, beyond description?
No, I said irreducible, not incomprehensible.
Since not everything can be reduced to mathematics is that evidence that your God does not exist?
No, it's evidence that God does exist. If everything could be reduced to mathematics, then mathematics would be God. But there is something beyond/deeper than mathematics - a higher order of organization and governance needed.
It is not what you find
If you find it, then you can show the evidence any time you'd like. Failing that, you haven't found it.
What can we learn from the Unknowable? God has no entailments
Where and how did you learn that God is Unknowable and that God has no entailments?
And saying God did it through some unknown way is more satisfying?
Knowing that God is the author, meaning and purpose of life is the most satisfying truth one can have.
Sorry, not for me.
No need to apologize that you don't want to learn about God. I wish you would take an interest in that, but it's certainly up to you.
What is there to discover if everything has the same answer, God did it?
As noted above, before saying "God" anything, you'd need to explain what you mean. In doing that, there's quite a lot to discover about God - who, as the source of all existence and life, knows all things and reveals the answers about all things to us, through himself. So, in learning about God - we necessarily learn about creation. We see efficient causality and can trace that back to ultimate or final causes in himself. There's quite a lot to learn.Silver Asiatic_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

mung: If people, for the most part, agree on the existence of God, the existence of God becomes an objective fact? An objective belief not factvelikovskys_{June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Carpathian:
Math is something we invented and for the most part agree upon.
You need to provide an explanation for why we all agree upon mathematics. (Setting aside the "for the most part" qualification.) Carpathian:
It [mathematics] is not objective in the sense that it [mathematics] exists independent of us.
Then why do we all, for the most part, agree on it? If people, for the most part, agree on the existence of God, the existence of God becomes an objective fact?Mung_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Mung: The elementary physical laws are symmetric with respect to time. Care to elaborate?velikovskys_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

SA: My point was directed toward Carpathian’s concern that If math was divine in origin, we should have “discovered” that by now. Perhaps God made the universe so knowledge would be gradually revealed, thus ensuring that every generation of people would always have new discoveries and the truth would become more clear. I get that, likewise perhaps not. God is unpredictable. At the same time, this gives more evidence about God, not less. Not really, He could just reveal the truth ,that would be more convincing We discover that mathematics is irreducible and that it is built into the universe with amazing power. The idea that mathematics originated “through natural processes” is not feasible. Why must nature be incomprehensible, beyond description? Since not everything can be reduced to mathematics is that evidence that your God does not exist? If that was possible, it would be saying quite a lot about the “naturalistic means” – somehow they’d have the power to create the diversity of life. I think it’s interesting that it’s not what we find though. It is not what you find ,to be more accurate , , As you asked: "What if God made the universe so that succeeding generations of humans would always have something more and new to learn?" What can we learn from the Unknowable? God has no entailments In that case, simply having “naturalistic means” that can easily be seen to produce lifeforms, wouldn’t offer anything much to explore and discover. And saying God did it through some unknown way is more satisfying? It would be an obstacle to finding God, not (what it seems to me to be) an avenue on the journey of discovery. Sorry, not for me. What is there to discover if everything has the same answer, God did it?velikovskys_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

I'm more interested in the land that time forgot.Mung_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

as to: "when did time not exist?" Time as we understand it, in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, had its origin, (along with space), in the big bang:
"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
A better question to ask than, "when did time not exist?", would be to ask, "when did now not exist?". Einstein was once asked (by a philosopher):
"Can physics demonstrate the existence of 'the now' in order to make the notion of 'now' into a scientifically valid term?"
Einstein's answer was categorical, he said:
"The experience of 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics."
Quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video or can be read in full context in the article following the video:
Stanley L. Jaki: "The Mind and Its Now" https://vimeo.com/10588094 The Mind and Its Now - Stanley L. Jaki, July 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind's baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind's ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://www.saintcd.com/science-and-faith/277-the-mind-and-its-now.html?showall=1&limitstart=
The statement, 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement’, was an interesting statement for Einstein to make since 'the now of the mind' has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, undermined the space-time of Einstein's General Relativity as to being the absolute frame of reference for reality.
Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson - MIT associate Professor Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms Mind = blown. - FIONA MACDONALD - 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit
i.e. 'the now of the mind', contrary to what Einstein thought possible for experimental physics, and according to advances in quantum mechanics, takes precedence over past events in time. Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to phrase Einstein's answer to the philosopher in this way:
"It is impossible for the experience of 'the now of the mind' to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics."
Of relate interest to 'the now of the mind' is special relativity and Near Death Experience testimonies: ‘If’ a hypothetical observer were to accelerate to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop for the hypothetical observer. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video https://vimeo.com/93101738 "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest - 2005 "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
Please note how the dilation of time in special relativity correlates to the testimonies of Near Death Experiences:
'Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything - past, present, future - exists simultaneously.' - Kimberly Clark Sharp - NDE Experiencer 'There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.' - John Star - NDE Experiencer 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video https://vimeo.com/92172680
Verse:
Titus 1:2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
bornagain77_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Meaning in MathematicsMung_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

The elementary physical laws are symmetric with respect to time.Mung_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

SA: The past is an immaterial concept. Is the source of a river immaterial because you are standing downstream? Humans merely became aware of the past. No human invented it. Déjà vu all over again, the concept of the past.There is a line of reasoning that by the time we experience the present it is already the past. Mathematics is the same. It’s an immaterial concept that is embedded into reality. Or it is tool to understand and manipulate reality we have learned. It starts with a distinction between none, one and more than one. No Tigers, one Tiger, more than one Tiger , that seems non abstract or immaterial and rather useful. No human invented that distinction. Humans merely became aware of something that necessarily existed with the origin of the universe. The question then is that arbitrary or merely reflective of the universe. But time wasn’t invented I didn't say it was, I did say when did time not exist? It’s a necessary component of the universe True, math not so much.velikovskys_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

My dear Carpathian, Do you think mathematics is objective or not? You act as if you do but argue as if you do not.Mung_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Vel My point was directed toward Carpathian's concern that
If math was divine in origin, we should have “discovered” that by now.
Perhaps God made the universe so knowledge would be gradually revealed, thus ensuring that every generation of people would always have new discoveries and the truth would become more clear. At the same time, this gives more evidence about God, not less. We discover that mathematics is irreducible and that it is built into the universe with amazing power. The idea that mathematics originated "through natural processes" is not feasible. The same is true with the diversity of life. The more we learn, the less likely that blind, unintelligent processes could have produced it. We discover more complexities and greater depth of design-features (functional hierarchies). It's like drilling down into a fractal pattern, with more beauty and complexity revealed in deeper levels. Ok, but at the same time, if you're saying:
Like creating the diversity of life by naturalistic means?
If that was possible, it would be saying quite a lot about the "naturalistic means" - somehow they'd have the power to create the diversity of life. I think it's interesting that it's not what we find though. What if God wanted to reveal himself in nature, but still require succeeding generations to work at finding him through greater understanding of the mysteries of nature? In that case, simply having "naturalistic means" that can easily be seen to produce lifeforms, wouldn't offer anything much to explore and discover. It would be an obstacle to finding God, not (what it seems to me to be) an avenue on the journey of discovery.Silver Asiatic_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

SA: What if God made the universe so that succeeding generations of humans would always have something more and new to learn? Like creating the diversity of life by naturalistic means?velikovskys_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

KF Yes, math is irreducible. It cannot be created from non-math. There can be no possible universe that lacks mathematics. A human being cannot create math as itself (humans can create numbering languages but not math functions themselves). As you explained elsewhere the necessary existence of the number 2 in any possible universe.Silver Asiatic_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

velikovskys
You asked when the concept of the past was invented.
The past is an immaterial concept. Humans merely became aware of the past. No human invented it. Mathematics is the same. It's an immaterial concept that is embedded into reality. It starts with a distinction between none, one and more than one. No human invented that distinction. Humans merely became aware of something that necessarily existed with the origin of the universe. What Carpathian is confusing is various numeric systems and outputs that follow from the essence of what is math. There are many aspects of math that have been invented by humans, in the same way as there are different means of telling time or recording time with calendars. But time wasn't invented. It's a necessary component of the universe. Math is the same. It's the distinction of one, plus or minus.Silver Asiatic_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

SA, dare I say that post Godel we know Mathematics to be irreducibly complex? KFkairosfocus_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Box, Carpathian is a dualist, or, at the very least, refuses to deny that he's a dualist. He believes in all sorts of immaterial things.Mung_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

DS
Even humans continue to “improve” mathematics over time.
True - and following up on this for Carpathian ... We also continue to discover new things about math. What if God made the universe so that succeeding generations of humans would always have something more and new to learn? Certain imperfections we find in math or in nature itself, may only be seen as imperfect because we haven't discovered the fullest/best understanding of them.Silver Asiatic_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Carpathian #140,
Box: So, whether you believe something or not is entirely determined by material processes.

Carpathian: You have just made a very materialistic statement.
Under materialism whether you believe something or not is entirely determined by material processes.
Carpathian: Is that what you meant?
Yes, it's the ugly logical consequence of materialism. According to materialism our beliefs are produced by irrational dumb blind material forces. IOW materialism is self-referentially incoherent.
Carpathian: If that’s what you mean then I agree.
No, you don't agree. In post #135 you wrote:
Carpathian #135: Whatever determines my mental processes has no determination on whether I believe them.
Box_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Carpathian, an irrational number cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers, a transcendental is not the root of any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. The numbers e and pi are transcendental, and via Euler's expression are infinitely precisely mutually specified, and yet this is astonishing for they come up in utterly diverse contexts. KF PS: It is not merely that we do not understand, but that the evolutionary materialist view is self referentially incoherent. As step two to recognising that, observe here Reppert:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
kairosfocus_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Carpathian,
The numbers are only irrational because we have came up with a math that forces us to use them.
Is there any way to avoid having to deal with irrational numbers without making things even worse? I don't know how it can be done.
As far as constraining God, I don’t see a problem with God coming up with a math that’s better suited for many things than ours is.
I agree with that. Even humans continue to "improve" mathematics over time.daveS_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Box:
So, whether you believe something or not is entirely determined by material processes.
You have just made a very materialistic statement. Is that what you meant? If that's what you mean then I agree.Carpathian_{June 10, 2015
June
06
Jun
10
10
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply