Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Experience, Rational Debate & Science Depend On The Supernatural

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m going to lay out three basic arguments for belief in the supernatural. First, science itself would not be possible were it not for the effects of unseen, higher-order supernatural causes. Second, science and rational debate would not be possible unless we all have faith in the supernatural – unseen spirits not bound to material causes. Third, each of us has direct personal experience of the supernatural every waking second of every day.

Let’s first define what “supernatural” means. From Merriam-Webster:

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.
unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

1: Science depends on measuring supernatural effects

We call these observable, reliable and measurable effects physical laws, forces and universal constants, but those terms are misleading, much like referring to “chance” as a causal agency. Those terms do not represent causal objects or energies we can point at, but are rather descriptions (or models) of observed patterns of behavior of matter and energy for which there is no known or observable cause. The names of these patterns and models are used as if they apply to causal things, but this is a conceptual error. When we say “gravity causes X to fall”, it is not gravity causing it because gravity is the description of the physics of the event. Something “causes it to fall”, but it is not gravity; it is whatever causes the pattern of behavior we call “gravity”.

What is the “natural world”?

The natural world is the set of phenomena that can be described and predicted according to behavioral and interactive constants. However, those laws and constants do not describe where or how such laws and constants exist in the first place, or what they are, or even how they are affecting physical phenomena. These invisible and mysterious causes are supernatural both by definition and logically because they: (1) necessarily relate to an order of existence beyond the observable natural world (since they cause the behavior that defines what we call “the natural world”, (2) are unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature (since science depends upon observing behavioral patterns, and behavioral patterns cannot explain what causes such patterns in the first place), and  (3) these patterns are attributed to invisible, unknown agents (which we erroneously refer to with objectifying terminology –  forces, constants and laws).

The science of the natural world depends upon an unknown, unseen superset of mysterious agencies causing the predictable, reliable, rationally understandable patterns of behavior we observe and describe as the set of natural-occurring phenomena.

2: Science & rational debate depend upon faith in the supernatural

Conducting science requires one to accept that humans have a free will capacity to identify objective facts about the universe and integrate them into theoretical systems that can be properly verified or disproved via true/false statements about experimental outcomes according to abstract principles assumed to be universally valid.  Logically, this means humans must have a capacity that transcends thought as the mere product of happenstance chemical interactions.  IOW, scientists must have faith that humans have the capacity to override whatever thoughts interacting chemicals happen to produce and instead force them down correct, truthful paths from an assumed objective viewpoint. Such a transcendent observational and willful capacity is necessarily supernatural, as the natural is only capable of producing whatever happenstance thoughts and “wilfulness” interacting chemicals happen to produce.

Rational debate depends upon the same assumption; that humans have some kind of non-physical agency which can supervise and override physical thought processes down paths which are correct according to abstract principles which are considered objectively binding. Such an agency is unseen and would necessarily have the power to intervene in the natural patterns producing thoughts and generating conclusions.

It is only by faith in such a supernatural agency and in the supernatural authority of abstract principles accepted as objectively valid that we can expect to be able to overcome the happenstance course of physical cause and effect in the course of our rational and scientific endeavors.

3: Everyone directly experiences the supernatural daily

Each of us experience ourselves as a seat of consciousness with direct, top-down, intentional, prescriptive control (to varying degrees) over the behaviors of many elements of our bodies and thinking processes.  We don’t know how to make various cellular or chemical reactions occur that are necessary for motion and thought. Somehow, without any technical or mechanical knowledge at all, with no understanding of how to initiate or control any of the various chemical and mechanical resources, simple intention can operate what is probably the most highly advanced and complex piece of equipment in the universe with amazing precision. Like a ghost inhabiting a doll out of a movie, our will alone can set physical forces in motion, control them, and stop them on command – no physics, chemistry or mechanical knowledge required whatsoever.  It is precisely like magic.

Furthermore, our will can instantly access any of virtually countless memories without any understanding whatsoever of how the memory process works or how the data retrieval process works.  We can simply intend to write or say something on a subject and gain immediate access to a seemingly never-ending stream of information corresponding to our intent. We can imagine things that do not even exist in the real world, our minds effortlessly rendering a massive virtual reality for us to experience as we daydream or sleep-dream. We cannot see this agency; we cannot explain how it can immediately differentiate from innumerable, variant intents to magically set billions of cellular processes and chemical interactions on a precise course to find memories, find or generate thoughtful, relevant information, or direct our body to precisely achieve a limitless variance of actions.

We experience this self-will as transcending mere physical causation from a higher order of existence, being able to direct the matter and energy of our bodies at will.  We have power over our physical and mental nature exactly like a supernatural ghost in a machine, capable of the most wondrous and amazing feats of physical complexity, creativity and computation without any understanding of how any of it is physically initiated, maintained or controlled.

——————————

That all of these things are considered “mundane” hides their astounding, miraculous, supernatural nature.

Comments
ba77 @ 70:
Artie, if chance and necessity could produce functional complexity and/or information ID, as it is properly understood, would be falsified. Period.
I anticipated your response, and tried to explain to you that disproving one theory does not somehow prove another. By your logic, one could say that the multiverse theory must be correct, because there is no explanation of how functional complexity arises in a single universe. Mulitiverse theory would be falsifiable according to your logic - all one would need to do is to explain how functional complexity arose in a non-multiverse. But of course that is ludicrous - one can't pretend to have a falsifiable theory simply by saying it can be falsified if someone else comes up with a better idea. There actually must be a way to test and confirm or falsify the theory in question, without reference to other theories.
Although, I, like you, consider Evolution falsified...
In that case you are apparently mistaken to claim that evolutionary theory cannot be falsified. It can - and has been - which means the theory is a scientific theory, albeit one that cannot account for the phenomena in question. ID, in contrast, cannot be tested and falsified, for the reason I've been saying (and you've been ignoring): There is nothing at all that cannot be attributed to an unspecified "intelligence", and something that explains everything explains nothing at all.Artie
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
OT: The Challenge of Adaptational Packages William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells June 22, 2016 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/the_challenge_o102943.htmlbornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Artie, if chance and necessity could produce functional complexity and/or information ID, as it is properly understood, would be falsified. Period. ID does not have to amend its falsification criteria and say 'well God may have done it such and such a way to make the design look random' because no one has ever shown random processes to be capable of the claims made for them. Namely creating the functional information in life. Although, I, like you, consider Evolution falsified, Evolutionists avoid falsification by appealing the 'epicycle' theories to cover up the embarrassing experimental shortcomings. (C. Hunter; I. Lakatos). The reason Darwinists are able to get away with this is because Darwinian evolution lacks a rigid mathematical basis to test against like other overarching theories of science, including ID, have. Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theaterbornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
ba77 @ 69:
Actually ID is falsifiable, it is Darwinian evolution that lacks a falsification criteria and is therefore a pseudo-science
No, that's backwards: Evolutionary theory can be falsified - and it has been, by authors such as William Dembski when they show that the mechanisms proposed in evolutionary theory are incapable of generating complex biological systems. ID, however, can't be falsified, for the reason I gave: There is nothing that cannot be attributed to an unspecified, undefined "intelligence". (NOTE: Proving some competing theory true is not the same as falsifying a theory, and conversely, falsifying one theory does not show a competing theory to be true).Artie
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
as to: "“intelligent design” explains everything- there is nothing that cannot be attributed to an undefined, unspecified “intelligence” – and so it likewise explains nothing." Actually ID is falsifiable, it is Darwinian evolution that lacks a falsification criteria and is therefore a pseudo-science:
Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science - Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
bornagain77
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
WJM @65
Multiverse advocates miss the entire point: the multiverse theory doesn’t explain how electrons would behave according to any predictable pattern in any universe.
Multiverse theory explains everything - there is nothing that cannot be attributed to an infinite multiverse - and so it explains nothing. Likewise, "intelligent design" explains everything- there is nothing that cannot be attributed to an undefined, unspecified "intelligence" - and so it likewise explains nothing.Artie
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Origenes @63,
You are missing the point. Surely, the claim is not that current science can describe and predict all phenomena.
You've missed my point. WJM had said this: "The natural world is the set of phenomena that can be described and predicted according to behavioral and interactive constants." This clearly implies that the supernatural world consists of the set of phenomena that cannot be described and predicted according to behavioral and interactive constants". I gave examples of phenomena that cannot be so explained, which by WJM's definition means that they are supernatural. But nobody thinks of turbulence or dark energy as being supernatural (at least nobody that I know). Thus, I've shown that WJM's definitions of "natural" and "supernatural" are confused.
Artie: Laws and constants are not causal things. Rather, they are descriptions of things we observe. ORI: It is as if you did not read the OP. WJM explicitly states that laws and constants “do not represent causal objects”.
WJM appears to believe that physicists consider laws and constants and forces to be things in the world, and that these things are considered to be physical causes per se. Against this, WJM argues that they are not actually causes at all (because, apparently, there is some supernatural agency actually causing things to happen). I pointed out that he misunderstands how laws, constants, and forces are understood in modern physics. The first two are not considered to be causes by anyone, while the third (forces) is indeed causal.
WJM: When we say “gravity causes X to fall”, it is not gravity causing it because gravity is the description of the physics of the event.
But WJM is wrong about this. Gravity is in fact what causes X to fall (in modern gravitational theory, "gravity" refers to characteristics of spacetime geometry). But the law of gravity doesn't cause anything, and the gravitational constant doesn't cause anything - these are descriptions, not things. But gravity per se is not a description, and the electromagnetic force is not a description - they are causes in the world. This is where WJM is confused.
WJM: Something “causes it to fall”, but it is not gravity; it is whatever causes the pattern of behavior we call “gravity”.
No, it is gravity. Prior to Einstein, gravity was conceptualized as a force that acted instantaneously between any two masses. Now, it conceptualized as a deformation of a four-dimensional spacetime manifold. These conceptual descriptions change as we learn, but they refer to things that are considered to be actual causes in the world. Gravity causes things to fall, but gravitational theory does not.Artie
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Origenes @ #64 'Medieval theologians understood the question, and they appreciated its power. They offered in response the answer that to their way of thinking made intuitive sense: Deus est ubique conservans mumdum. God is everywhere conserving the world.' It is God that makes the electron follow His laws.' -------------------- Max Planck thought the same as the medieval theologians : "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." You may well be familiar with the quote, but I thought it worth mentioning here.Axel
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Multiverse advocates miss the entire point: the multiverse theory doesn't explain how electrons would behave according to any predictable pattern in any universe.William J Murray
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Murray's "something", that causes X to fall, is discussed by Berlinski, 'The Devil's Delusion', p.132 & p.133 :
Joel Primack, a cosmologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, once posed an interesting question to the physicist Neil Turok: “What is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws.” Turok was surprised by the question; he recognized its force. Something seems to compel physical objects to obey the laws of nature, and what makes this observation odd is just that neither compulsion nor obedience are physical ideas. Medieval theologians understood the question, and they appreciated its power. They offered in response the answer that to their way of thinking made intuitive sense: Deus est ubique conservans mumdum. God is everywhere conserving the world. It is God that makes the electron follow His laws. Albert Einstein understood the question as well. His deepest intellectual urge, he remarked, was to know whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe. If He did, then the laws of nature are as they are in virtue of His choice. If He did not, then the laws of nature must be necessary, their binding sense of obligation imposed on the cosmos in virtue of their form. The electron thus follows the laws of nature because it cannot do anything else. It is logic that makes the electron follow its laws. And Brandon Carter, Leonard Susskind, and Steven Weinberg understand the question as well. Their answer is the Landscape and the Anthropic Principle [read: 'multiverse' — Origenes]. There are universes in which the electron continues to follow some law, and those in which it does not. In a Landscape in which anything is possible, nothing is necessary. In a universe in which nothing is necessary, anything is possible. It is nothing that makes the electron follow any laws. Which, then, is it to be: God, logic, or nothing?
Origenes
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
Artie @61,
WJM: The natural world is the set of phenomena that can be described and predicted according to behavioral and interactive constants.
Artie: In that case, phenomena such the radioactive decay of some particular nucleus is not part of the natural world. Nor is turbulence.
You are missing the point. Surely, the claim is not that current science can describe and predict all phenomena.
Artie: Laws and constants are not causal things. Rather, they are descriptions of things we observe.
It is as if you did not read the OP. WJM explicitly states that laws and constants “do not represent causal objects”.
WJM: When we say “gravity causes X to fall”, it is not gravity causing it because gravity is the description of the physics of the event.
You fail to respond to the main point Murray is making …
WJM: Something “causes it to fall”, but it is not gravity; it is whatever causes the pattern of behavior we call “gravity”.
.. this invisible mysterious “something” — which contains causal power —, WJM argues, belongs to the supernatural:
WJM: These invisible and mysterious causes are supernatural both by definition and logically because they: (1) necessarily relate to an order of existence beyond the observable natural world (since they cause the behavior that defines what we call “the natural world”, (2) are unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature (since science depends upon observing behavioral patterns, and behavioral patterns cannot explain what causes such patterns in the first place), and (3) these patterns are attributed to invisible, unknown agents (which we erroneously refer to with objectifying terminology – forces, constants and laws).
Origenes
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Hello, William J. Murray, The most obvious and most self-evident truths are often missed completely and are often the most difficult to bring to the attention of those who have missed them. The so-obvious-and-so-close-to-you-that-you-missed-it existence of non-material realities is such a truth. What you have provided here is one of the best articulations of that truth I have ever read. Help me out with something. I have on several occasions I have (apparently unsuccessfully) attempted to explain to someone that the images seen in the mind's eye are also non-material realities, for reasons I am confident you already grasp, so I won't explain them here. If you don't mind, I would like to read your articulation of that fact. Thanksharry
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Addressing the main post:
The natural world is the set of phenomena that can be described and predicted according to behavioral and interactive constants.
In that case, phenomena such the radioactive decay of some particular nucleus is not part of the natural world. Nor is turbulence. That seems odd, to say the least.
However, those laws and constants do not describe where or how such laws and constants exist in the first place, or what they are, or even how they are affecting physical phenomena.
Laws and constants are not causal things. Rather, they are descriptions of things we observe. So, it isn't the law of mass/energy conservation that causes mass/energy to be conserved, but instead mass/energy is observed to be conserved and so we articulate a natural law describing that state of affairs. The physical constant that we have identified as the charge of an electron, expressed in units that we have invented, does not per se cause various electro-magnetic phenomena. Rather, it is our way of describing an aspect of how electrons interact with other entities.
These invisible and mysterious causes are supernatural both by definition and logically because they: (1) necessarily relate to an order of existence beyond the observable natural world (since they cause the behavior that defines what we call “the natural world”, (2) are unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature (since science depends upon observing behavioral patterns, and behavioral patterns cannot explain what causes such patterns in the first place), and...
You are saying that nuclear decay and turbulence - and lots of other things that cannot currently be explained and predicted by laws and constants - are supernatural, but that doesn't really align with what most people consider to be supernatural. As your dictionary definition suggests, when people talk about the supernatural they are usually are talking about things that are supposed to be conscious and sentient but not living - something like a god or a ghost. They are not talking about things that science currently can't explain or predict, like the nature and properties of dark energy.
(3) these patterns are attributed to invisible, unknown agents (which we erroneously refer to with objectifying terminology – forces, constants and laws).
You are saying that forces, constants, and laws are actually agents - conscious, sentient things? Again, we don't think that laws and constants are things in the world, they are our descriptions of things in the world. A force is a thing in the world, described in terms of laws and constants.
The science of the natural world depends upon an unknown, unseen superset of mysterious agencies causing the predictable, reliable, rationally understandable patterns of behavior we observe and describe as the set of natural-occurring phenomena.
Science consists of inducing and testing laws and constants that describe observations.
Conducting science requires one to accept that humans have a free will capacity to identify objective facts about the universe and integrate them into theoretical systems that can be properly verified or disproved via true/false statements about experimental outcomes according to abstract principles assumed to be universally valid.
The question of whether our will violates physical causality is another unsolved mystery - it is debated by philosophers, but not settled by experimental science (as yet, anyway). It doesn't make any difference to scientific inquiry - determinists, super-determinists, compatibilists, metaphysical libertarians, and so on, can all do science perfectly well without ever debating the metaphysics of volition.Artie
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
An absolutely awesome post, WJM. It's just 'blown me away', it's so penetrating.Axel
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
The Joe Felsenstein Challenge:
OK, here’s the proposed “test” of whether Weasel programs do better than random search.
Mung
June 21, 2016
June
06
Jun
21
21
2016
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
Gordon Cunningham:
But regardless, who is talking about pre-defined targets. Certainly not anyone with even a high school knowledge of evolution.
Lets see now. Richard Dawkins. Joe Felsenstein. Pretty much every IDiot posting at TSZ.Mung
June 21, 2016
June
06
Jun
21
21
2016
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
Seversky asks:
What purpose does it serve?
It serves the same purpose as any other definition: identifying a meaningful and significant difference between one thing and another. In this case, it would mark the distinction between that which is uncaused and absolute, and that which is caused and contingent.
If everything that exists has a ‘nature’ which makes it itself and not something else and is accessible to scientific scrutiny then that is the natural world.
And therein lies the difference. It may be that not all things which exist are available to scientific modeling.
That includes what are popularly thought of as supernatural entities, such as ghosts or spirits or souls, right up to God. I can see no reason for setting aside a domain called the supernatural other than to preserve some of these alleged phenomena from investigation.
Here's the problem with your view, seversky: it does not allow for the potential real existence of phenomena which cannot be scientifically modeled. If one admits that such phenomena might exist, then there is not only a good use for the term, but a necessary one. If one insists such phenomena do not exist, then they are simply profession their scientism - their faith that science can model all which exists. That doesn't mean one uses the term to prohibit or avoid scientific inquiry; it just means that there may be valid uses for the term. That is the case I make here - that there are indeed valid and even necessary uses of the term "supernatural": to describe that which, if such things exist, are best categorically described as supernatural - beyond the reach of science to model/predict. If science could model or predict free will, then free will doesn't exist as such, because it is presumed not only acausal, but transcendent to any cause, which would place it vertical to the world of scientific modeling. If free will does not exist, then the concept of science and logic as arbiters of objective facts and sound theories are false. For science to be useful as it is conceptualized, the supernatural must exist in the form of a transcendent free will vertical to the realm of cause and effect, and certain abstract concepts must be beyond the reach of science to model or explain as evolutionary byproducts of chemical interactions. And that is what we have found in the case of universal constants, forces and laws, morality, logic and mathematics. The fact that you are simply uncomfortable using the term is not a good argument against using it to describe certain things that appear both factually and logically beyond the reach of science to explain via naturalism.William J Murray
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
William Speareshake falsely claimed,,, "That paper demonstrated that the computer could derive equations that were not programmed into it" Yet from the very paper he cited it states: "Technically, the computer does not output equations, but finds “invariants” — mathematical expressions that remain true all the time, from which human insights can derive equations.,,, Once the invariants are found, potentially all equations describing the system are available: “All equations regarding a system must fit into and satisfy the invariants,” Schmidt said. “But of course we still need a human interpreter to take this step." Go figure! He will never honestly admit to the fact that he was wrong even though his own paper he cited proves his claim was false. :) Denial of the real world, thy name is Atheistic Materialism: Atheistic Materialism - Where All of Reality Becomes an Illusion - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1213432255336372/bornagain77
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
BA77: "Since you have not honestly admitted you were wrong in your original claim about computers creating mathematical equations/algorithmic information, " That paper demonstrated that the computer could derive equations that were not programmed into it. By any rational assessment, they are creating mathematical equations. "I am not going to address any other fallacious/red herring claims you make." My claim was accurate. You calling it fallacious is, itself, fallacious. "In fact, I have put a personal request in to admin that you be banned (once again) for trollish behavior." It's a free country.Gordon Cunningham
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
The reason such abstract concepts are better explained via reference to the supernatural, rvb8, is because reference to a binding, obligatory, objective arbiter/methodology of acquiring and discerning truthful statements about anything cannot point to anything naturalism has to offer, as your "easy explanation" so clearly demonstrates. Making an argument that abstract commodities are naturalism-produced individual, subjective feelings destroys any potential validity of the argument, because truth and logic - required for the validation of anything - are themselves abstract concepts like justice and naturalism. It really is a shame that you and others like you seem to be unable to grasp this rather simple and straightforward logic. If naturalism is true, your argument cannot be held as valid in any sense other than that you personally feel like it is. It is only by an implicit reference to assumed absolute, supernatural commodities (truth, logic, what justice "should" mean, etc.) that your "argument" can be seen as anything more than a purely solipsistic narrative.William J Murray
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
rvb8 said:
You however, seem quite happy to equate justice, fairness, altruism etc, as evidence of supernaturalism? they are not. These “abstract” ideas are much more easily explained in a “natural” argument!
I challenged him to make his case about "justice", which he responded thusly:
WJM ‘justice’, ‘altruism’, ‘love’, are all beautiful and fill me with the same feelings of humanity and togetherness they fill you with, I assume. These feelings evolved in a natural way on the African savannah many tens of thousands of years ago as a more efficient way to survive. Our social existance made us careful, mostly sharing, and highly CURIOUS. Of these emotions I value our natural curiosity as the most satisfying. Jesus said that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’. I say they will not, and that it is the ‘curious’ that will inherit the earth. You, and your fellow design advocates come across as inherantly, incurious.
According to rvb8's naturalistic narrative, justice is a personal, subjective feeling that evolved. If I feel that I shouldn't have to pay for things I steal from others, that's what justice is. If Jack feels like I deserve to be killed for stepping on his lawn, that's justice. Is this how we actually interact with the concept of justice - as if it is a personal, subjective commodity that we believe varies from person to person? Of course not. Humans consider justice a universal, and universally binding, concept. We consider proper justice to be a moral obligation - that we are obligated to seek justice not for ourselves, but for others as well. We also hold that justice is a universal human right regardless of unjust governments, laws or majorities. This would make our sense of transcendent (above personal preference or law), universal, obligatory justice a delusion, much like our sense of transcendent, universally binding, obligatory morality, logic, and mathematics. rvb8's explanation for our sense of justice is that, essentially, it is an evolutionary delusion (like morality, free will, sense of and experiences of the divine and the supernatural, etc.). Extrapolating this, under the naturalistic narrative, all abstract concepts - like mathematics, truth, logic, etc. - are evolutionary delusions. They do not exist as transcendent, objectively binding absolutes; as evolutionary patterns of thought, they are subject to individual variances that occur as happenstance organic interactions affect, in aggregate, the thought patterns of groups and individuals. Unfortunately, this naturalistic narrative of what abstract concepts are defeats itself, since understanding evolution, establishing evolutionary facts, and making arguments about them requires the transcendent nature of the very abstract commodities it undermines as subjective delusions, or else rvb8's "explanation" here can be nothing more than his/her personal, solipsistic, delusional narrative about whatever "justice" might mean in his personal mix of organic chemistry. Perhaps rvb8 was right. It is of course "easier" to "explain" abstract concepts as personal, solipsistic delusions. However, an easier explanation is not necessarily a more valid explanation, and the only means by which a valid explanation can be offered is if there is some universally binding arbiter of validity by which an argument can be assessed for validity. Unfortunately, under rvb8's naturalistic narrative, there is no such universally binding method of validation to be found. Yes, rvb8, it is rather easy to explain something when such explanations do not have to meet any sort of objective criteria for validation - when all the explanation has to do is personally satisfy your particular, individual chemistry. Unfortunately, it doesn't make your view valid, and your view denies any sort of objective validation exists. Thus, your narrative can only be (under your naturalistic narrative) your personal feeling, and under your naturalistic narrative that is all you can present it as and all I should take it for with the understanding there is no reason whatsoever why anyone should adopt your personal views over their own. So, under your narrative, I can dismiss your argument as false because my naturalistic brain chemistry dictates and, according to your narrative, my dismissal of your claim is necessarily every bit as valid as your claim, and you must agree to it or you are denying the principle behind your claim - that abstract concepts are individual, subjective constructs and feelings. Your naturalistic narrative may make explanations easy, but it also renders them worthless personal delusions.William J Murray
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
@rvb8 You cannot make what is subjective into something objective.mohammadnursyamsu
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
Since you have not honestly admitted you were wrong in your original claim about computers creating mathematical equations/algorithmic information, I am not going to address any other fallacious/red herring claims you make. In fact, I have put a personal request in to admin that you be banned (once again) for trollish behavior.bornagain77
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
also of note: Of interest to theoretical mathematics that are fruitful to the progress of science, it is said that the best mathematical theories, that are later confirmed empirically to be true, were born out of the mathematicians 'sense of beauty'. Paul Dirac is said to have mathematically discovered the ‘anti-electron’, before it was empirically confirmed, through his mathematical ‘sense of beauty’:
Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty - video (28:12 minute mark - prediction of the 'anti-electron') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfYon2WdR40
As the preceding video highlighted, Paul Dirac was rather adamant that beauty was integral to finding truth through math:
‘it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment’ Paul Dirac
Albert Einstein was also a big fan of beauty in math. Einstein stated:
Truth not equal to Beauty - Philip Ball – May 2014 Excerpt: ‘the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones’ Albert Einstein http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/beauty-is-truth-theres-a-false-equation/
As well, In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said,
“This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”
In regards to General Relativity, mathematical physicist Clifford Will said
“Fiddling with general relativity, he believes, would be tantamount to changing the Fifth Symphony. “General relativity is so unbelievably beautiful and simple – it’s in some ways the most perfect gravitational theory that you could possibly imagine,” he says. All of the alternatives he’s seen so far are “horrendously ugly by comparison”.”
Alex Vilenkin, who mathematically proved that all hypothetical inflationary universes must have also had a beginning, commenting on Euler’s Identity, stated,,,
"It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians sense of beauty" Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One: (page 201)
As well, Richard Feynman called Euler’s Identity a ‘jewel’:
“Richard Feynman was a huge fan and called it a "jewel".” http://www.sciencedump.com/content/world%E2%80%99s-most-beautiful-equations
‘Mathematical beauty’ even had a guiding hand in the recent discovery of the Amplituhedron:
The Amplituhedron (mathematical beauty - 21:12 minute mark) - Nima Arkani-Hamed, Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27M9ommJc#t=1272
Paul Dirac, when pressed for a definition of mathematical beauty that fostered mathematical discovery, reacted as such:
Dirac threw up his hands. Mathematical beauty, he said, ‘cannot be defined any more than beauty in art can be defined’ – though he added that it was something ‘people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating’. http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/beauty-is-truth-theres-a-false-equation/
And indeed, just as Dirac held, it is found when mathematicians are shown equations such as Euler's identity or the Pythagorean identity the same area of the brain used to appreciate fine art or music lights up:
Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty – Feb. 12, 2014 Excerpt: Mathematicians were shown “ugly” and “beautiful” equations while in a brain scanner at University College London. The same emotional brain centres used to appreciate art were being activated by “beautiful” maths.,,, One of the researchers, Prof Semir Zeki, told the BBC: “A large number of areas of the brain are involved when viewing equations, but when one looks at a formula rated as beautiful it activates the emotional brain – the medial orbito-frontal cortex – like looking at a great painting or listening to a piece of music.” http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26151062
What is interesting, in this seemingly deep connection between the discovery of new mathematical truth and beauty, is the fact that the ‘argument from beauty’ is a Theistic argument.
Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God: Excerpt: Beauty,,, can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea’ of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form. http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/williams-aesthetic.shtml
bornagain77
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
BA77: "i.e. “So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active." Even Behe says that there was no intelligence involved in chloroquine resistance. Please show me the intelligence involved in the evolution of nylonase. But regardless, who is talking about pre-defined targets. Certainly not anyone with even a high school knowledge of evolution.Gordon Cunningham
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
'active information' is inserted by intelligent source in order to ensure a successful search i.e. "The researchers have taught a computer to find regularities in the natural world that represent natural laws" i.e. "in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.",,, i.e. "So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,," all this was referenced but the troll apparently did not even read it before he googled and listed the first thing he saw! To further clarify The law of conservation of information. Before They've Even Seen Stephen Meyer's New Book, Darwinists Waste No Time in Criticizing Darwin's Doubt - William A. Dembski - April 4, 2013 Excerpt: In the newer approach to conservation of information, the focus is not on drawing design inferences but on understanding search in general and how information facilitates successful search. The focus is therefore not so much on individual probabilities as on probability distributions and how they change as searches incorporate information. My universal probability bound of 1 in 10^150 (a perennial sticking point for Shallit and Felsenstein) therefore becomes irrelevant in the new form of conservation of information whereas in the earlier it was essential because there a certain probability threshold had to be attained before conservation of information could be said to apply. The new form is more powerful and conceptually elegant. Rather than lead to a design inference, it shows that accounting for the information required for successful search leads to a regress that only intensifies as one backtracks. It therefore suggests an ultimate source of information, which it can reasonably be argued is a designer. I explain all this in a nontechnical way in an article I posted at ENV a few months back titled "Conservation of Information Made Simple" (go here). ,,, ,,, Here are the two seminal papers on conservation of information that I've written with Robert Marks: "The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher-Level Search," Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14(5) (2010): 475-486 "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, 5(5) (September 2009): 1051-1061 For other papers that Marks, his students, and I have done to extend the results in these papers, visit the publications page at www.evoinfo.org http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/before_theyve_e070821.htmlbornagain77
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
BA77: "You claim equations are designed by computers? Really??? http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2009/04/computer-derives-natural-laws-observation
If Isaac Newton had had access to a supercomputer, he'd have had it watch apples fall and let it figure out what that meant. But the computer would have needed to run an algorithm developed by Cornell researchers that can derive natural laws from observed data. The researchers have taught a computer to find regularities in the natural world that represent natural laws -- without any prior scientific knowledge on the part of the computer. They have tested their method, or algorithm, on simple mechanical systems and believe it could be applied to more complex systems ranging from biology to cosmology and be useful in analyzing the mountains of data generated by modern experiments that use electronic data collection. The research is described in the April 3 issue of the journal Science (Vol. 323, No. 5924) by Hod Lipson, associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, and graduate student Michael Schmidt, a specialist in computational biology. Their process begins by taking the derivatives of every variable observed with respect to every other -- a mathematical way of measuring how one quantity changes as another changes. Then the computer creates equations at random using various constants and variables from the data. It tests these against the known derivatives, keeps the equations that come closest to predicting correctly, modifies them at random and tests again, repeating until it literally evolves a set of equations that accurately describe the behavior of the real system. Technically, the computer does not output equations, but finds "invariants" -- mathematical expressions that remain true all the time, from which human insights can derive equations. "Even though it looks like it's changing erratically, there is always something deeper there that is always constant," Lipson explained. "That's the hint to the underlying physics. You want something that doesn't change, but the relationship between the variables in it changes in a way that's similar to [what we see in] the real system." Once the invariants are found, potentially all equations describing the system are available: "All equations regarding a system must fit into and satisfy the invariants," Schmidt said. "But of course we still need a human interpreter to take this step." The researchers tested the method with apparatus used in freshman physics courses: a spring-loaded linear oscillator, a single pendulum and a double pendulum. Given data on position and velocity over time, the computer found energy laws, and for the pendulum, the law of conservation of momentum. Given acceleration, it produced Newton's second law of motion. The researchers point out that the computer evolves these laws without any prior knowledge of physics, kinematics or geometry. But evolution takes time. On a parallel computer with 32 processors, simple linear motion could be analyzed in a few minutes, but the complex double pendulum required 30 to 40 hours of computation. The researchers found that seeding the complex pendulum problem with terms from equations for the simple pendulum cut processing time to seven or eight hours. This "bootstrapping," they said, is similar to the way human scientists build on previous work. Computers will not make scientists obsolete, the researchers conclude. Rather, they said, the computer can take over the grunt work, helping scientists focus quickly on the interesting phenomena and interpret their meaning.
I could get to like this cut and paste approach. It reduces the amount of thought necessary to post a comment.
Gordon Cunningham
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
William Speareshake, Or his twin, You claim equations are designed by computers? Really??? You are aware of the law of conservation of information that was ultimately derived from Godel's incompleteness theorem are you not? If so, then why do you make such idiotic assertions other than for the purpose of trolling? If not, why not admit your ignorance and ask for help instead of embarrassing yourself like this? Note to Mr. Arrington: Need help on permanently banning a troll? https://www.reddit.com/r/modhelp/comments/45xh92/need_help_on_permanently_banning_a_troll/ General notes for unbiased readers who are interested:
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf The danger of artificial stupidity – Saturday, 28 February 2015 “Computers lack mathematical insight: in his book The Emperor’s New Mind, the Oxford mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose deployed Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem to argue that, in general, the way mathematicians provide their “unassailable demonstrations” of the truth of certain mathematical assertions is fundamentally non-algorithmic and non-computational” http://machineslikeus.com/news/danger-artificial-stupidity The mathematical world - James Franklin - 7 April 2014 Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,, James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/ Conservation of information, evolution, etc - Sept. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution: "The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation]." Gödel - As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995). Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,, More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,, http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/ Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html What Does "Life's Conservation Law" Actually Say? - Winston Ewert - December 3, 2015 Excerpt: All information must eventually derive from a source external to the universe, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/what_does_lifes101331.html
bornagain77
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
BA77: “Regardless of what GC falsely believes, Humans writing mathematical equations to describe the universe is certainly NOT ‘natural’ and is therefore certainly not reducible to a ‘natural cause’.” GC
Sorry to burst your bubble, but humans use their physical (natural) brains for abstract reasoning. This allows them to do math and derive equations. All natural.
I am afraid that you are very confused. It is not "all natural." Nature cannot "use" itself. A non-natural man, acting as a causal agent, uses his natural brain, which is a physical organ (and his non-natural mind, which is a non-material faculty) to make mathematical calculations and formulate concepts about nature. (abstract principles). Neither the causal agent, the equation, or the concept is natural. Only the physical brain (not the mind) is a part of nature. Even if you ignore the role of mind, the dynamic remains the same.StephenB
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
BA77: "Regardless of what GC falsely believes, Humans writing mathematical equations to describe the universe is certainly NOT ‘natural’ and is therefore certainly not reducible to a ‘natural cause’." Sorry to burst your bubble, but humans use their physical (natural) brains for abstract reasoning. This allows them to do math and derive equations. All natural. Unless, of course, you have any examples of high level equations being derived without a physical brain, or a computer designed by a human brain. And I was able to demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning without 700 words of cut and paste. You should try it.Gordon Cunningham
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply