Hitchhiker’s Guide author’s “puddle” argument against fine-tuning — and a response

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 25, 2021

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design}

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

At Stand to Reason, Tim Barnett reminds us of an argument against fine-tuning of the universe Douglas Adams (1952–2001) offers in one of the Hitchhiker books (he Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time):

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Barnett responds:

In the puddle analogy, the puddle—Doug—can exist in any hole. That’s how puddles work. The shape of the hole is irrelevant to the existence of the puddle. If you change the shape of the hole, the shape of the puddle changes, but you always get a puddle.
The problem is, life doesn’t work like that. Life cannot exist in any universe. The evidence from fine-tuning shows that a life-permitting universe is extremely rare. If you change certain conditions of the universe, you cannot get life anywhere in the universe. For instance, slightly increase the mass of the electron or the up quark, and get a universe with nothing but neutrons. No stars. No planets. No chemistry. No life.
Tim Barnett, “Why the Puddle Analogy Fails against Fine-Tuning” at Stand to Reason (April 22, 2021)

It’s a good argument. But in reality, any argument against fine-tuning will be accepted, whether it makes sense or not. It is only the defenders of a rational universe who need to make sense. And that’s not for the other guy; it’s for you.

See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Comments

WJM: If it is “absolutely other,” how is it you know where it fits in your worldview, and how to place it in a sentence describing your worldview? Imprecision in my use of language. I don't mean "absolutely other" ontologically - after all, I call it, The Root, that is, the Root of everything, including you, me and the lamp post - but rather with regards to spacetime-grounded rational ideas such as time, objectification, relation, even mathematics. "Absolutely other" in the sense that not much can be said about it - perhaps nothing can be said about it - that flows from Reason. So it doesn't do much good to try to "figure it out" via reason. That is not to say something cannot be known about it, but it comes directly and not via rational thought. For example, conscious experience of color is part of its nature, and color is not known by rational thought.Karen McMannus_{May 11, 2021
May
05
May
11
11
2021
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Jerry, there are different audiences and contexts. The general comment was not intended to provide a degree of warrant. I am pointing out what was involved in simplicity, KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2021
May
05
May
9
09
2021
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

pardon a note that simple for Einstein clearly included the tensor mathematics at the core of General Relativity
His sentence was as simple as you can get. He wrote books and scientific articles for the other audiences but for a typical conversation one has to be simple and get to the essence of an idea quickly.. Nearly everything on this thread and a lot of other threads is gibberish. The only person not writing gibberish here is StephenB. There are two kinds of gibberish, non-sensical gibberish and incomprehensible gibberish. You excel at the latter. Nearly everyone is mocking you because of your incomprehensible gibberish that is convoluted at best. You write long extremely complicated and hard to follow posts. When criticized you add more incomprehensible things to your ideas. Your ideas have the great justification in that they tend to reflect the truth no matter how incomprehensible they are. But you should know they are mocking you for your style and lack of clarity. Every time you respond sto Murray, he laughs that he has gotten you again. He doesn't believe the nonsense he writes as he constantly contradicts it in his other posts. So know he is baiting you and you are swallowing eagerly. Yes, simplicity is a necessity for communication and persuasion.jerry_{May 9, 2021
May
05
May
9
09
2021
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

PS: One of the things I recently argued turns on a question, what gives arguments persuasive traction and/or brings us to a sense of duty to pay heed? Where, a further observation is that the arguments of even objectors to such core principles ALSO inescapably appeal to same. Where, thirdly, I was particularly exercised by Cicero in De Legibus as he discusses law as the highest reason noting that moral prudence is a law and conscience [presumably, sound] is a law. I began to see a pattern. Once we are rational, responsible, significantly free enough to reason and to warrant conclusions that may justly be termed knowledge -- mechanically acting, GIGO-driven computational substrates need not apply -- our reasoning is morally governed. Governed by identifiable law built in and coeval with our human nature, though plausibly extending to other similarly rational creatures. So we come to first oughts, the first duties of reason. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including, warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbour of like rational nature, so too to fairness, to justice, etc. Observe how objectors will inevitably appeal to such duties even as they try to set them aside or evade their force. A familiar pattern emerges, we see inescapability. So, if the duties are inescapable, then they are inescapably first truths, first moral truths at the heart of rationality. So, to, self-evident as the attempt to object instantly frustrates itself. (Of course, that does not mean that . . . being free creatures . . . we cannot defy duty and do what we ought not; just ponder how lying works by exploiting the ability to set up an apparently true but false and damaging narrative.) What I found interesting is the intensity of objections that arose, even as in case after case, objections implicitly appealed to exactly these first duties. I suspect, the prevalence of relativism, subjectivism and emotivism is involved, especially the failed moral truth claim that there are no moral truths, just values.kairosfocus_{May 9, 2021
May
05
May
9
09
2021
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

SB, time as we experience is is connected to thermodynamic energy flows and the constraints implied by the Second Law, aka time's arrow. Our world is spatial-temporal, causally connected and energy dynamics constrained. It is also governed by lawlike regularities, even randomness follows distribution laws. Causal connectivity points to contingency. Beyond, given distinct identity of any possible world, we must be able to mark W as different from neighbouring world W', say W = W' + A, or, using partitioned sets W = {A|~A} with ~A = W. Thus in W we find a simple unit A, a complex one ~A, so twoness, and the partition is empty, nullity. 0, 1,2. With von Neumann's construction we can go on to counting numbers N, so the structured quantitative sets, N, Z, Q, R, C, R* etc. Mathematics thus emerges as the substance of the logic of structure and quantity, which we may study through cumulative exploration guided by logic starting with distinct identity; with non contradiction and excluded middle as close corollaries. Core logic, already, is showing its universal character and so is core mathematics. With possible worlds as sufficiently complete descriptions as to how this or another actual world is or might be, logic of being is involved (so, possible vs impossible and contingent vs necessary beings etc), and more. For us, duty to right reason involves acknowledging that, recognising duty to truth, our proneness to error, what can be deductively proved, what can be inductively supported, etc. I think, gaps in our education system render such things needlessly unfamiliar and even suspicious. That makes us -- including the well certificated -- unduly vulnerable to ideological and/or agenda driven manipulation through fallacies and propaganda techniques. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2021
May
05
May
9
09
2021
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

Origenes said at 393:
If MRT is true we are most likely to find ...
Out of the infinite potential behaviors you might experience from another person, what or who do you think is selecting and processing specific behaviors of that person into your experience? Hint: it's not them. BTW, I've changed the labeling of the theory from MRT (mental reality theory) to IRT (idealism reality theory) for clarification purposes. Any time forward I refer to MRT is just a mistake of habit.William J Murray_{May 9, 2021
May
05
May
9
09
2021
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Jerry, pardon a note that simple for Einstein clearly included the tensor mathematics at the core of General Relativity. He is also on record as saying everything should be as simple as possible but not simpler than that. That is, there is what is simplistic, naive, wayward and prone to reject sound counsel -- as the preface to Proverbs warns. Some go beyond into willful obtuseness or worse. A sounder approach is that of comparative difficulties, seeking explanations that are factually adequate, coherent and balanced in explanatory power, neither an ad hoc patch-work that grows as leaks are fixed [think, Ptolemaic system c 1500 on] nor so simplistic that it is forced to play the procrustean bed game. Sometimes the result is at five year old level, sometimes, it is at twelve year old level, sometimes 101 College course level, sometimes full-bore technical. Unfortunately, many of the objections to issues at focus need a significantly technical answer. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2021
May
05
May
9
09
2021
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

/ On WJM's MRT: /
WJM: “… everything possible exists: every possibility, every choice, every action, every perspective, every variation.”
In any situation, the vast majority of possible choices, actions, perspectives and variations makes no sense whatsoever. Only a very small subset of these items make up for rational and/or emotional coherent behavior. If MRT is true we are most likely to find ourselves in a world where people behave totally unpredictable. The term “dependable” would have no meaning in relationship with persons. There would be no person with even a remotely fixed character. It would be a rare occasion if at a certain moment a person’s behavior would have an emotional or rational connection to his behavior immediately prior to that moment. Almost no one who planned a trip from A to B would reach his destination. But this is not what we find. Admittedly at times people do make some pretty irrational inconsistent choices. However, there is an obvious discrepancy between the behavior people exhibit in our world and the lunatic asylum on steroids which is to be expected under MRT.Origenes_{May 9, 2021
May
05
May
9
09
2021
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

WJM, the record is there. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2021
May
05
May
9
09
2021
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

KM said:
"... whatever it is, it is absolutely other. (In additional to calling it The Root, I call it the Black Box.) It’s not so much that it is “timeless”, but that the very idea of “time” doesn’t apply at all.
If it is "absolutely other," how is it you know where it fits in your worldview, and how to place it in a sentence describing your worldview? To assign it as being that which is doing anything, or providing anything, means you have identified it at least in general terms. What I assume you're referring to when you say "absolutely other" is that you don't know what it exists as or how it does what it does, but you have at least assigned that it does something significant - even necessary - in your experience, or providing for that experience to occur. In that sense, though, how is it any different from anything else? I don't know what I am; my own consciousness is ineffable. I don't know what experience is or how it occurs. I don't know what other people are or how they exist; i don't know what anything is or how anything exists. Logic isn't about knowing what things are or how they work; it can't be. As far as I can tell, there's no way to know those things. Scientific theories don't explain anything; they are models that describe behaviors of things in our experience. Logic is about accurately describing and predicting experience. Yes, it identifies phenomena we experience, but those are labels. Labels do not tell us what those things are, if they even "are" anything other than "an experience", they (1) distinguish various aspects of my experience from each other, and (2) are essential in developing a model of how to direct our experiences. I'm a philosophical pragmatist, so what I'm interested in is generating as successful a model as possible for the purpose of directing my experience towards that which I prefer. So, at least in that limited and narrow sense, everything I label in my worldview as anything is a symbolic referral to a practical use, even if it is "I don't know what X is, or how it works, but if insert action A into X in a certain way, B occurs." It's like operating a computer. I have no idea how any of it works or what it (ultimately) exists as; all I know is that I do action A and I get result B. Or, my own body; I have no idea how it works; but I do A (intend to raise my arm) and B happens (my arm rises.) If something doesn't offer me a rational, practical means of understanding how to direct my experiences at least in a general "Do A, B happens (or is likely to happen,)" the concept is useless to me. So, whatever God or Root or The Black Box is, if it doesn't provide me even a basic, logically predictable (even if just statistically significant) use, why even talk about it? Regardless of what "it" actually is, or how "it" actually works, if it isn't part of a useful model of how to input A and get B, it's an irrelevant commodity to even consider. Might as well just call it a random output generator. So, other than just enjoying talking about it, why bring up the conditions of God, or the time, space and material problems inherent in the idea of God "creating" anything? It's because it leads to and helps me explore what I have found to be a more useful and practical conceptualization of God. This idea not only provides a logically successful framework for inputting A and getting B, it exponentially expands experiential potential by removing conceptual metaphysical constraints such as time, space, and some individual "God" being having arbitrarily generated narrow limits to experience by creating a particular me into a particular "universe." From these challenging discussions over the years, I've "figured out" more useful ways to conceptualize these things. In my model, time, space, states and conditions are experiences. God did not "create" me or any universe; God is the resource through which I am exploring sequences of experiences out of infinite potential. That's not my personal claim of fact; that's what I've found to be a very useful model. If I argue it as a truth statement about the nature of reality here and there, that's because I'm arguing from and for the IRT model.William J Murray_{May 9, 2021
May
05
May
9
09
2021
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

SB: Dissatisfaction with the current state or condition is not the only possible motive for creating the universe. It could be a desire to share something – Divine life, for example. WJM: ---"That would be dissatisfaction due to not having other beings to share it with. IOW, God would have had to imagine that other beings could exist that could share in the “Divine Life,” and preferred that over not having such beings to share it with. Otherwise, why would God make that choice, if not when God compared the current situation to an option, was dissatisfied with the current?" Again, the motive would not be dissatisfaction. It would be generosity. As I wrote, love is effusive in the sense that it pours itself out in a selfless way. Operating from a spirit of dissatisfaction would indicate a sense of incompleteness, which would indicate a lack of perfection. ---"If God created the universe, there was not “nothing.” There was God." Right. ---"Unless there was something other than God at the time, there’s only one place the universe can be, and one “material” it can be made of." God doesn't need any ready made raw materials to create something from nothing. There is no such thing as place if space has not yet been created. ---"You can have one or the other, but not both. Either the universe was not created by God, or God is not eternal or “outside of time.” I submit that God must be outside of time in order to create time.StephenB_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

KM: ---"All that is fine [rules of right reason] within spacetime by brains doing Reason. You establish premises and you Reason from them. Non-rational/trans-rational elements are not subject to Reason. The conscious experience of color is non-rational/trans-rational. Timeless Roots are non-rational/trans-rational." A world view is rational if it conforms to reason’s standards. A world view is irrational if it does not. That doesn’t mean that one’s perceptions or experiences are reasonable or unreasonable -they just are what they are - but it does mean that the framework within which you interpret them should make sense and, as close as possible, reflect the truth about the real world – not simply your world. Is there an objective moral law? Does life have a purpose beyond my own personal goals? Do I have free will? What should be my attitude about suffering? What does it mean to love? To whom am I responsible? All the important questions about our life require a well-reasoned world view in order to understand and deal with them and form a rational plan for our life. Otherwise, we enter into a kind of self-centered subjectivism, which is, in itself, irrational. Much that I have read on this blog fall into that sad category.StephenB_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

Two quotes appropriate to most of what has been said here. Some very obvious exceptions of clarity by mainly one person.
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough - Albert Einstein
And
Build me a tower 90 ft high so I can be safe when the bull starts to fly - street smarts.
jerry_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

WJM: Either the universe was not created by God, or God is not eternal or “outside of time.” This is a subject about the trans-rational. Given that, Reason can never grapple with it or "figure it out." Because of that I don't see the two as necessarily mutually exclusive. No one gets a free pass by merely invoking "God." Given my experience, I approach the trans-rational this way: whatever it is, it is absolutely other. (In additional to calling it The Root, I call it the Black Box.) It's not so much that it is "timeless", but that the very idea of "time" doesn't apply at all. It's neither in time nor timeless. The very idea of time does not apply at all. This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but one may be able to intuit it if one considers that the conscious experience of color is "timeless." It is trans-time. The nature of color has nothing at all to do with time. Our own perception of time can be altered using meditation or hallucinogenics such that one can experience "timelessness" of consciousness in a general way, outside of any succession of events. You can still perceive the succession of events, and yet experience that you are "above it all" in a timeless way that is different than a mere negation of time that one may call "timelessness." It's utterly divorced from the very concept of time like sound is utterly different than color. It is not merely "timeless", it is trans-time. All consciousness exists in a trans-time ontology. It is a positive state, not a negation. More, not less. Our normal experience of time is the actual negation. Like everything else we experience in spacetime, via brains, it is an artificial dumbing down. Many people have experienced this. It is impossible to fully express with words, as with any conscious experience. But, as with many things, words can sometimes trigger a "koan" in people.Karen McMannus_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB: So you don’t think that all world views are irrational as you originally stated? Or do you mean that all world views except yours are irrational, which is merely non-rational. I clarified my intent after Barry corrected my usage. Please see my reply to you @375. when you said that “all world views are [non-rational], “you automatically included my world view in that category without even knowing what it is I'm pretty sure I know what it is and understand it. It incorporates non-rational/trans-rational elements, does it not? And necessarily does. To say that a world view is rational means that it honors the rules of right reason, which include the law of causality, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the principles of deductive logic, inductive logic, and abductive logic, that it follows evidence where it leads (and no where else), that it doesn’t contain contradictory themes All that is fine within spacetime by brains doing Reason. You establish premises and you Reason from them. Non-rational/trans-rational elements are not subject to Reason. The conscious experience of color is non-rational/trans-rational. Timeless Roots are non-rational/trans-rational.Karen McMannus_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

SB said:
Dissatisfaction with the current state or condition is not the only possible motive for creating the universe. It could be a desire to share something – Divine life, for example.
That would be dissatisfaction due to not having other beings to share it with. IOW, God would have had to imagine that other beings could exist that could share in the "Divine Life," and preferred that over not having such beings to share it with. Otherwise, why would God make that choice, if not when God compared the current situation to an option, was dissatisfied with the current? This would mean God was dissatisfied with a current state by comparing it to an imagined preferred stated and made the choice to design and create the Universe.
I am sure that you have heard the term “creation ex-nihilo.” Just because something cannot come from nothing doesn’t mean that God cannot create something out of nothing.
That's actually what it means. You don't a free logical absurdity just because "God" is involved. However, if God created the universe, there was not "nothing." There was God. Unless there was something other than God at the time, there's only one place the universe can be, and one "material" it can be made of. However, the bigger issue is that the creation of the universe and a timeless or eternal God appear to me to be irreconcilable, contradictory ideas. You can have one or the other, but not both. Either the universe was not created by God, or God is not eternal or "outside of time."William J Murray_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Karen McMannus --- "All world views are irrational." SB: Is your world view irrational? KM: ---"Non-rational is a better term." So you don't think that all world views are irrational as you originally stated? Or do you mean that all world views except yours are irrational, which is merely non-rational. To say that a world view is rational means that it honors the rules of right reason, which include the law of causality, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the principles of deductive logic, inductive logic, and abductive logic, that it follows evidence where it leads (and no where else), that it doesn't contain contradictory themes, that it doesn't attempt to remake the world according to personal preferences, that it cares about and seeks to find the truth about all things insofar as that is possible and, most important, that it recognize the fact that some truths are more important than others and that all truths should be placed in the proper hierarchical order. So when you said that "all world views are irrational, "you automatically included my world view in that category without even knowing what it is and you excluded your world view on the grounds that "non-rational" is a better term. Further, you did not even bother to define the essence of a rational world view. Do you understand why these things could be a problem?StephenB_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

WJM ---“A fundamental aspect of will is that will is always fundamentally about preference. To make an ID choice, one must prefer one thing over another, even if those options are conceptual. This requires the ID to have, at the bare minimum, two or more competing potentials from which one can be chosen to design and implement, even if it is a choice whether or not to take a walk. Ultimately, any choice to change one’s current state or conditions into a different state or condition requires some form of dissatisfaction with the current state or condition, or there would be no impetus to even consider changing them.” Dissatisfaction with the current state or condition is not the only possible motive for creating the universe. It could be a desire to share something – Divine life, for example. According to the Christian world view, God is a community of loving persons, defined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Christian world view holds that God wanted to share that love by creating others in his image, creatures who were capable of giving and receiving love through the use of their free fill. Love is effusive and tends to pour itself out in a selfless fashion. ---“Does the idea that God had conditions or states that could be changed via a deliberate creation of the universe conflict with the idea of an immutable God, or a God “not made up of “parts” that can “change?” To say that God is immutable is to say that his nature and his character do not change. Unlike the Muslim God, for example, God doesn't change the moral code on a whim. In keeping with that point, God does not have to change his nature to perform a creative act. To respond to your add on point,, God is a pure spirit, which means that he has no “parts that can be changed.” ---“Another problem with the theistic ID perspective may be the logistics of the idea of creation itself. If God is the creator of time and space, how was there a time before God created then universe, and after?” The Christian answer is that God is “outside” of time. So, you are right, it does become clumsy when people use terms like “before and after” creation without making it clear that they are just paying tribute to the progression of events that took place “after” the creative event when, so to speak, the clock started running, which made such a thing as an “after” possible. ---“Also, unless space already existed, where did God create the universe?” If God created the space-time-continuum, then it would seem that there was no such thing as where until God created space. ---"If God was all there was, what did God make the universe out of?" I am sure that you have heard the term “creation ex-nihilo.” Just because something cannot come from nothing doesn’t mean that God cannot create something out of nothing.StephenB_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Perhaps the comments were turned off in the "The Debate In a Nutshell" post - I can't find any comments or a place to make them, or I'd put this comment there. BA77 mentioned the other day that I don't make arguments supporting ID anymore. This is because I don't find that argument interesting or enjoyable. The evidence is so overwhelming for ID of life and what we commonly refer to as "the universe" that, at this point, arguing for it is almost like arguing that free will exists. I have better, more enjoyable things to do with my time. As far as I'm concerned, the existence of ID (specifically, of life and the universe) has been conclusively established. Because of that, the interesting argument, as I see it, is the concept of theistic intelligent design, which is outside of the official purview of ID itself. Of course, to debate theistic intelligent design, or to even rationally explore what that might mean or entail, some premise about the nature of conditions of "being God" would have to be agreed on or at least accepted arguendo to examine whether or not those qualities would even entail the capacity to "intelligently design" anything, much less implement said design. Is "intelligent design" even the right concept to apply to how this universe and life exist, from the theistic perspective? What are the essential qualities necessary, not to "recognize" ID (we know those qualities,) but rather to say some entity can engage at all in "intelligent design and implementation?" Are those qualities congruent with the idea of "God" engaging in "intelligent design?" First, what are the basic qualities necessary for a being to be capable of intelligent design? Let me try to quantify this with the following: 1. The capacity of deliberate will. 2. Conditions that provide for directing that will towards a specific purpose. 3. Conditions that allow for the implementation of that purpose .. 4. ID is always about deliberately changing a current state or condition to a different, preferred state or condition. By "condition," I mean both of the designer and the context of the designer, that allow for the capacity to even think about changing some state or aspect of those conditions. A fundamental aspect of will is that will is always fundamentally about preference. To make an ID choice, one must prefer one thing over another, even if those options are conceptual. This requires the ID to have, at the bare minimum, two or more competing potentials from which one can be chosen to design and implement, even if it is a choice whether or not to take a walk. Ultimately, any choice to change one's current state or conditions into a different state or condition requires some form of dissatisfaction with the current state or condition, or there would be no impetus to even consider changing them. This in itself may bring up some problematic issues when it comes to various conceptions of "God." Was God dissatisfied with it's state or conditions before it created the universe? Does the idea that God had conditions or states that could be changed via a deliberate creation of the universe conflict with the idea of an immutable God, or a God "not made up of "parts" that can "change?" Another problem with the theistic ID perspective may be the logistics of the idea of creation itself. If God is the creator of time and space, how was there a time before God created then universe, and after? If God is "eternal" in the time-linear sense, we have the infinite history problem; if God exist in a timeless state, there cannot be a "before" and "after" the creation of this universe from God's perspective. Also, unless space already existed, where did God create the universe? If God was all there was, what did God make the universe out of?William J Murray_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

KF said ...
[lecture, lecture, chastisement, lecture, ..]
When one becomes so convinced of their interpretation of facts that they mistake their interpretation of the facts for the facts themselves.William J Murray_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

KM said:
I call it The Root.
VL said:
The I Ching calls it the Tao.
When in Rome, and all that.William J Murray_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

SB said:
And yet you seem to have placed all your bets on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which in itself, does not qualify as a fact.
I haven't placed any bets at all on the CI because, if you had bothered to read and understand what I have written, I came to my worldview before I knew anything about the quantum physics experiments. Furthermore, when I use quantum physics experimental results to support IRT, I'm not using any interpretation of the experimental results; I'm referring to the experimental results themselves because they support IRT. I didn't say those results can't be used in support of other models, but that is not the only evidence I use to support my argument.William J Murray_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

WJM, again, for record: my focus is that it is fatal to posit a self-referential, incoherent account of rationality. In that context, we are subjects and are self-aware, exerting reasoning as we ponder, perceive and interact with the in common world. So, discussions about facets of our self-aware rationality are inescapably self referential. As just noted to KM that makes such particularly sensitive to incoherence. That means that views on reality etc that imply or suggest or invite grand doubt or delusion regarding any major faculty, perception, awareness, memory etc -- as opposed to particular, "local" errors -- undermines the credibility of mind and therefore itself. Grand doubt or suggested delusion regarding the reality and independence from our thoughts of the in common world fall under that concern and stricture. If our self-aware perceptions of the outer in common world are at steep discount on a given scheme, our equally self aware memories, reasonings, arguments etc are also -- fatally -- at steep discount. At this point, I doubt this will be persuasive to you but it needs to be noted for record. KFkairosfocus_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

PS: I find that QM is often turned into a platform for much speculation, similar to how relativity was in former days when it was held to justify relativism. By contrast, the Copenhagen position, for example, pivots on the issue that as one approaches a classical limit, the QM result must move towards the well tested classical results. That shows that those results are in fact a reliable baseline and yardstick, empirically established macro scale facts. That sort of context is part of why I have noted that there is no good reason to use quantum, microscale substructure to try to discredit the reality of the familiar, in common world we interact with. WJM still relies on a computer and keyboard or a similar technology to make comments here. Any system of beliefs about the world that seeks to make good sense relies on the credibility of mind, so it is fatally self-referential to cast grand doubts on any major aspect of the mind, freedom to reason, memory, perception of the world, sense of self awareness etc. Yes, there is room for error and correction, but that in itself relies on the underlying credibility. Where also, incoherence is well known to undermine ability to infer soundly as p => q chains from truth to truth reliably but once p is plausibly false, the false leads to both true and false implications. So p=x AND ~x becomes a serious problem as it is necessarily false. Ironically, on dealing with hypotheticals, we often use that property of implication to guide us as to which alternative to choose. For, we can see consequences for p's that are or may be false depending on our choice, then we select what seems best. Turning back, once we incorporate self referential principles in our views, their coherence becomes a particularly vital question.kairosfocus_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

KM, pardon but neither irrational nor non rational are apt for speaking of worldviews on the whole, as both invite or suggest inferences that are self referentially incoherent or even seemingly justifying of arbitrary subjectivism or relativism: none are sound so pick and choose according to taste or fashion. No, that door to the irrational should be shut. No, too, we must not assume that core first plausibles shaping our faith points and presuppositions are inherently the opposite of the rational, instead they are part of the fabric of rationality as neither infinite regress nor question-begging circularity are acceptable. Yes, worldviews do generally bristle with difficulties and some are indeed clearly incoherent [such as evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers]. That said, it is our mindedness that drives having worldviews in the first place that rise above, say, instinctive programming of animals. Such is why the approach of comparative difficulties is valuable and relevant. Indeed, the comparative aspect is key to answering the issue of question-begging. KFkairosfocus_{May 8, 2021
May
05
May
8
08
2021
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

STephenB: Do you have a standard for discerning whether or not a world view is irrational? Me: Yeah. Because my worldview also incorporates direct experience, which is not necessarily rational. I misread your question when I answered the first time. Delete previous answer. My worldview is the product of non-rational/trans-rational, and rational elements as experienced and processed by me. How could it be any different? Ultimately, all worldviews are non-rational because they either rely on non-rational/trans-rational experience and/or assume non-rational ontologies. Consciousness is trans-rational. For example, the conscious experience of color has nothing to do with Reason.Karen McMannus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

StephenB to WJM: the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which in itself, does not qualify as a fact. True. However, the C.I. is the only interpretation consistent with consciousness/free-will, which is the primary fact of anyone's existence (assuming everyone is conscious.) Denying the C.I. and its implications would be denying the primary fact of one's existence. Doesn't seem like a good choice of worldview to me.Karen McMannus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Is your world view irrational? Non-rational is a better term. If so, then why would you try to enter into a rational discussion with me? We can have rational dialog on a variety of topics as long as we stick to agreed upon premises. Do you have a rational standard for discerning whether or not a world view is irrational? Yeah. Because my worldview also incorporates direct experience, which is not necessarily rational. For example, your conscious experience of red and blue is non-rational. If it were, you would be able to describe the difference of your conscious experience of red and blue with words. You can't. Nobody can. It's a non-rational direct experience. If not, then how would you know? Ultimately, I am my own standard. Are you not aware that such a standard exists? Where?Karen McMannus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: You equivocated on the word irrational there. Fair enough. Perhaps "non-rational" is a better word choice.Karen McMannus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Karen McMannus, "Ultimately all world views are irrational." You equivocated on the word irrational there. Irrational can mean "contrary to reason." It can also mean the leap of faith necessary to arrive at unprovable first things. WJM used it in the first sense. You used it in the second.Barry Arrington_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply