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

Karen McMannus: ---"Ultimately all world views are irrational." Is your world view irrational? If so, then why would you try to enter into a rational discussion with me? Do you have a rational standard for discerning whether or not a world view is irrational? If not, then how would you know? Are you not aware that such a standard exists?StephenB_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

The I Ching calls it the Tao.Viola Lee_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

WJM @303: the ground-of-being God (or whatever you want to call it.) I call it The Root. Some Hindus call it Brahman. Some Buddhists call it The Void. Hassidic Kabbalist Jews call it Ein Sof. My friend Herman from Brooklyn calls it, "Dat Place." :)Karen McMannus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

StephenB: his world view is totally, manifestly, and irredeemably irrational. Ultimately all world views are irrational.Karen McMannus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

WJM to KF: "However, I’ve now pointed this out at least a dozen times. You appear to be immune to understanding the difference between accepting a fact and accepting a world-view interpretation of what the facts mean." 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.StephenB_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

WJM, for cause the record stands. KF.kairosfocus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

KF said:
In short, you are gliding over the massive fact of our experience of and interacting with an in common world.
I'm not gliding over any of those facts. I'm just not accepting how you believe all that is occurring. However, I've now pointed this out at least a dozen times. You appear to be immune to understanding the difference between accepting a fact and accepting a world-view interpretation of what the facts mean.William J Murray_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

SB @361 said:
The point is that you are willing to build your world view around the way you want things to be even if it is at variance with the way things really are. That is not what intellectual inquiry is supposed to be about.
No. I build my worldview entirely around something I directly know is the way that thing is: I know what I enjoy and what I do not. I absolutely, directly know I exist; I know that I experience; I know what experiences I enjoy and what experiences I do not. I don't know for certain how any of that occurs, but I know with certainty those things are occurring. I know logic and math are fundamental to all of this, and fundamental to pursuing enjoyable experiences and avoiding unenjoyable experiences. It is my view that outside of these (and perhaps a few other things,) I don't know anything as certainties; everything else is belief (from well-warranted and well-evidenced to pure faith) and opinion. I realized that every single decision I make is rooted in the pursuit of either direct or abstract enjoyment (I made that case elsewhere on this site.) So, I decided to conduct an experiment; what would happen if I just invented an entire worldview, the only goal of which was for it to be as enjoyable as possible, as long as it didn't violate logic or my actual experience (the only things I had to work with in constructing my worldview model.) IOW, as long as it was valid logically wrt my experiences, I could interpret my experiences any way I wanted. This resulted in my IRT, which has provided the model for a life that is enjoyable beyond my original capacity to even imagine. Now this appears to me to be tautologically obvious; arrange your thoughts and beliefs in a manner that is enjoyable, seek out that which is enjoyable, and you'll have more enjoyable ongoing experiences. Well, DUH! Seems completely obvious to me now. So, how is my worldview not built on "the way things are?" I counter, it is my model that is actually built on "the way things are," that I am absolutely certain about; what it is not built on are theories and ideas that represent "the way things might be." It might be that dualism is correct; it might be that objective good and evil exist; it might be that the Christian God is THE God. The evidence presented in science publications might be true and accurate. But, I don't know those things to be "the way things are." So, my model is indeed based entirely on those things I am absolutely certain to be "the way things are:" I exist, I experience, I seek enjoyment in those experiences.William J Murray_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

WJM, I clip:
What is “reality?” Reality under ERT and IRT are two different conceptual models. Thus, what we are perceiving and gaining veridical knowledge about via our perceptual experiences are two entirely different things. You are claiming that because, under IRT, one cannot gain veridical knowledge about the reality proposed to exist under ERT, it cannot be veridical knowledge of any reality. Your argument assumes your conclusion that ERT represents actual reality we can gain veridical knowledge about.
Neatly left out, eg just to comment, you interacted with a computer of some kind and took for granted the Internet infrastructure to present it for others to see etc. In short, you are gliding over the massive fact of our experience of and interacting with an in common world. In effect you suggest it is question begging to take it seriously. This is exactly the grand doubt or delusion appeal that leads to self referential undermining of the objectivity of the world. You appeal to quantum theory, which was created by taking that world and observations seriously. Yes, there is a substructure with dynamics that makes up much of our experience with matter and energy in space and time. It does not make that experience false, dubious or delusional. Understanding why a gas flame is blue does not make the observation that it is there, blazing away, running a bit high under the pot and needs to be adjusted down by reducing fuel flow dubious or false. As I already noted:
. . . there is no reasonable doubt that we observe, inhabit and interact with that world, e.g. just to type and transmit comments in this thread. The point therefore remains, that you are seeking to break Reidian common sense realism. That is, that though our senses, thoughts and faculties can and do err in detail, on the whole they cannot be in grand doubt or delusion or the basis for our rationality self-referentially discredits and undermines itself. On the contrary, there is every good reason to reject as hopelessly incoherent any scheme of thought that casts such grand doubt or delusion over any significant faculty of our minds. Which is precisely what your dismissal or grand doubt regarding the objectively warranted, in common world we inhabit and perceive as we interact with it, does. Self-referential incoherence that undermines credibility of the mind you use to devise M/IRT.
KFkairosfocus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

WJM: --- "This is not the same as me saying that I don’t care about what is true or false; I may have used those words, but I’d have to see the context within which I made that statement." I didn't suggest that you do not tell the truth. I said that you don't care about what is true or false. Do I really need to add the words (about reality). The point is that you are willing to build your world view around the way you want things to be even if it is at variance with the way things really are. That is not what intellectual inquiry is supposed to be about.StephenB_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

KF said:
That should suffice to show why it is relevant to highlight that reality, from its root, is independent of us and our perceptions or notions and arguments.
This is where understanding what I mean when I say something from the IRT perspective would come in handy. Or, just paying attention and remembering. I've explicitly stated that under IRT the "root reality" exists and is independently existent of any individual experience. I've also explicitly stated that what most people refer to as "reality" - the common 4D(including time) physical world is not "root reality." I don't think you even believe that the common, 4D physical world is the "root reality" because that would make you something of a physicalist or materialist. Your clear intent is to undermine confidence in the veridicality of our perceptions and experiences of a common world in which we interact. That is not my intent. I'll explain you are making a logical error in this interpretation of what I am saying. First: Veridical: the degree to which an experience, perception, or interpretation accurately represents reality. The key word in that definition is "reality." What is "reality?" Reality under ERT and IRT are two different conceptual models. Thus, what we are perceiving and gaining veridical knowledge about via our perceptual experiences are two entirely different things. You are claiming that because, under IRT, one cannot gain veridical knowledge about the reality proposed to exist under ERT, it cannot be veridical knowledge of any reality. Your argument assumes your conclusion that ERT represents actual reality we can gain veridical knowledge about. This is what has been disproved by quantum science experiments; these experiments have demonstrated that the ERT model of reality is false because we have gained veridical knoewledge from our perceptual experiences that clearly demonstrate the IRT nature of reality.
Further to this, what the common world we inhabit is, is clearly independent of our perceptions and ideas, which can be in error.
Nope. The common world we inhabit is not independent of our observational perceptions; it is in fact entirely dependent on them. This has been conclusively demonstrated over and over the past 100 years or so, the "common world" not being the same as "root reality." "Root reality" is, under IRT, independent of any individual's perception.
That is, part of your reasoning seeks to undermine that truth is accurate description of states of affairs,
Nope. Truth is the accurate description of states of affairs. Unfortunately, your description of the "state of affairs" has been scientifically disproved. That does not mean that there are no truthful, accurate descriptions of states of affairs; it just means your model is in error. Does that sound like me saying there are no truthful statements under IRT about "states of affairs?" I could go on through the post pointing out your errors, but they're all basically the same error. To be more clear, let me start by more clearly identifying your model: it's a dualism reality theory ("external" has proven to be a problematic identifier.) Your error of logic is that you are making objections to IRT from the DRT perspective. It's not that veridical knowledge about reality cannot be ascertained via perceptual experiences; it's that that veridical knowledge is about a non-dualistic reality. It's not that IRT undermines rationality itself; it's that it undermines the rational structures, inferences, justifications and conclusions under the premise of DRT. IRT doesn't undermine truth; it doesn't contradict any self-evident or necessary truths; it doesn't end science; it doesn't undermine our ability to sort and categorize our experiences; it is not inconsistent with common world experience; it does not undermine our capacity to interact with each other, verify and predict features and characteristics of the common world. It makes specific, testable truth claims both about the nature of root reality and the nature of "the common world," which have been experimentally verified. From what I can ascertain, your real objection is that IRT undermines your world-view belief system, which you are apparently so psychologically embedded within that you think undermining your world-view belief system is an attack on truth itself, knowledge itself, and logic itself. IOW, you are so fully committed to your world-view as actual reality, that any other view must be irrational, come from an "intent" of undermining truth, knowledge and logic; so much so that you don't even bother asking a single question about it to check to see if your perspective of what IRT says is correct. When we're discussing your worldview, I ask you a ton of questions to better understand your view. You ask me literally zero questions. You are not arguing or debating in good faith. You're proselytizing and lecturing your worldview, over and over, because you are fully committed to it psychologically; you cannot help but defend it and promote it all times. You can't even take on someone else's position arguendo because, as you've made clear, there is far too much at stake in your worldview. You are not debating in good faith, KF; you are only taking the appearance of debate as an opportunity to continually lecture others and chastise them repeatedly ... "for the record," ... for not bending the knee to your worldview perspective. "For the record," you opened the door to my armchair psyche eval by characterizing my "intent." ; )William J Murray_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

WJM, It seems I will need to address a substantial issue in greater detail than I would prefer. So, there it is, despite what I would prefer. In 341, you argued,
KF, of course, raises this objection from an ERT perspective: that there must be an objective, independent-of-experience ruler (world) by which we can calibrate our experiential rulers, or else we cannot acquire true knowledge. Setting aside the science which has disproved this notion of an external (of universal mind) objective world, and the self-evident truth that all we actually have to measure our experiences by are our experiences (regardless of where the information for the experience comes from,) we can see how this objection does not apply to IRT.
That should suffice to show why it is relevant to highlight that reality, from its root, is independent of us and our perceptions or notions and arguments. We are contingent creatures who participate in reality antecedent to our existence. You use ruler as a substitute for yardstick, thereby alluding to my concern on warping effects of crooked yardsticks taken as reference standards that systematically warp and frustrate our thought. The issue of warped, error-reinforcing thinking is a sufficiently established challenge that I only need to mention the matter. You spoke of there MUST be, which clearly points to necessary, world-root being; prime reality that is source of worlds such as we experience. Your clear intent is to undermine confidence in the veridicality of our perceptions and experiences of a common world in which we interact. You use two key assertions to do this, first claiming that science has "disproved" this notion of an external (of universal mind) objective world. Strawman. You have brought in a conflation of objectivity as implying utter independence of a "universal mind" and/or an "external . . . objective world." I have nowhere argued that the world has independence of mind, instead it is credible that it is a design of a mind capable of building a cosmos. Science has provided no disproof of such, but rather fine tuning is a sign of such design. Further to this, what the common world we inhabit is, is clearly independent of our perceptions and ideas, which can be in error. That is, part of your reasoning seeks to undermine that truth is accurate description of states of affairs, whether regarding our in common world or other possible or actual worlds, or for that matter regarding our thoughts or abstracta and principles of logic, mathematics, being etc. Such, in key part are antecedent to science, which builds on them and cannot refute them. Such is before the point that science is about provisional empirical support and reliable generalisation or theorising, not proof. Next, you proceed to assert: the self-evident truth that all we actually have to measure our experiences by are our experiences. This is not a self-evident truth, certainly insofar as it seems to be loaded with implicit Kantian ugly gulch thinking regarding a claimed gap between the phenomenal world and that of things in themselves. We are subjects, who have experiences including thoughts and perceptions, memories etc. Some of those thoughts are about reasoning, logical, mathematical etc. In that reasoning we are aware of certain first principles that apply to any distinct possible world, starting with the law of identity, root of logic. As a direct close corollary, we know that no distinct entity x can under the same circumstances also be NOT-x. This allows us to understand truths about all possible worlds, such as that no square circle can exist as required characteristics are mutually contradictory. So, we experience and perceive, reason, remember, infer, conclude and while these are experiential, they point beyond experiences we have or can have. We cannot ever experience encountering a square circle, but we can know to utter certainty regarding such a candidate being that it cannot be conceived nor can it exist in this or any possible world, worlds that may or may not exist. That clearly goes beyond our experiences. Beyond, experience is being used loosely and ambiguously. What is indeed certain is that we are self-evidently, undeniably self-aware or conscious and that it is through that awareness that we perceive, remember so we can focus attention on, express thoughts in words and symbols, consciously argue [there is also sub conscious reasoning] etc. However, as noted, there is much of the subconscious that is in that too. If all that was being said or suggested was that we are conscious and rely on the subconscious, that would be one thing, but clearly that is not the case. For, you are thinking of universal mind with ourselves as seeming sparks flying off from it as whirling vortices of localised consciousness. (You have denied solipsism.) Your rejection of "external reality theory" in practical terms is rejection of our objective awareness and knowledge of an in common world independent of our particular consciousness as individuals or as expressing inter-subjective agreement in some circle of reference or other -- school of thought, science, ideology, institution, board of editors, technical board of a dictionary, community, worldview adherents etc. In this context, "theory" is a loaded term implying grounds for doubt regarding our perception of that in common world. Which is exactly the fatal issue. For, there is no reasonable doubt that we observe, inhabit and interact with that world, e.g. just to type and transmit comments in this thread. The point therefore remains, that you are seeking to break Reidian common sense realism. That is, that though our senses, thoughts and faculties can and do err in detail, on the whole they cannot be in grand doubt or delusion or the basis for our rationality self-referentially discredits and undermines itself. On the contrary, there is every good reason to reject as hopelessly incoherent any scheme of thought that casts such grand doubt or delusion over any significant faculty of our minds. Which is precisely what your dismissal or grand doubt regarding the objectively warranted, in common world we inhabit and perceive as we interact with it, does. Self-referential incoherence that undermines credibility of the mind you use to devise M/IRT. Which is what I have pointed out from the outset when you began to publicly promote your mental reality, idealistic theory of reality. F H Bradley has a point on any scheme that draws anything of significance from the Kantian ugly gulch:
We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [--> this is the "ugly gulch" of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]
KFkairosfocus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

KF said:
WJM, absent a root of reality independent of antecedent causes, we do not have a basis for any possible world, whether conceptual or mental or physically instantiated, concrete or abstract . . . and this includes mathematical logic model worlds. From utter non-being, nothing can come — were there ever such, it would forever obtain; as, what is not . . . in thought or fact or any mode we can imagine . . . can have no causal capability. Utter non being includes, no propositions so no descriptions of how a world is or may be. That a world is, requires independent being at root of reality, the debate is of what nature. Your objection fails from the root. Noted, for record and reference. KF
That line I put in bold would make sense if I had ever objected to "a root of reality independent of antecedent causes' or argued for "utter non-being" as the root of reality. I don't see where I wrote anything that could even remotely be interpreted that way.William J Murray_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

SB said:
He is on record as saying that he doesn’t care about what is true or false.
I don't believe I ever said that in the sense that you are portraying it. In fact, I've specifically said several times that I care about telling the truth about my views and experiences here in this forum because I enjoy having my true views and experiences held up to scrutiny and criticism. I think probably what you mean is that I have said that I'm not interested in finding out what is true in terms of some kind of search for final or universal truth. I'm interested in developing a model that works for my purposes; undertaking that enterprise means I care about the truth at least in terms of whether or not the model works. An analogy would be: I'm not interested in whether or not the sun revolves around the Earth or vice-versa, or if Apollo pulls the sun through the sky with his chariot; that doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is if the sundial works so my wife and I can get to the theater on time. That requires some degree of local discernment between what is true and what is false, and in such instances I care about it. This is not the same as me saying that I don't care about what is true or false; I may have used those words, but I'd have to see the context within which I made that statement.William J Murray_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

Paige, I will roll the tape on the exchange, which led to my fair comment corrective -- not "condescending" -- response on substance. The following is after your citation of dictionaries and dismissive remarks regarding logic of being:
[KF, 346:] Paige, the dictionaries describe aspects of necessary being, without delving on logic of being or possible worlds etc. Square circles are impossible of being in any world as core characteristics stand in mutual contradiction. Fires are contingent entities requiring fuel, oxidiser [look up Fluorine fires], heat, combustion chain reaction to begin or be sustained. Twoness must exist in any distinct possible world, it neither begins nor can it be turned off, it is part of the fabric for any particular world to exist, i.e. it is necessary and causally independent. (This happens to be part of why a core of Mathematics is absolutely universal, giving that discipline enormous power.) Again, gaps in our education system, here is an introduction. [Links given above, the first being to a paper, the second to a discussion of logic of being here at UD.] [P, 348:] {KF,} Paige, the dictionaries describe aspects of necessary being, without delving on logic of being or possible worlds etc. {P}The other thing I have learned about definitions is that many words and terms define things that do not exist. [--> observe the insubstantial response directed to me, and what it suggests/invites] [KF, 349:] Paige, impossible beings do not exist. Possible ones do or might. Necessary beings are the framework of worlds existing. Your dismissive comment, trying to suggest dubiousness fails. It points to gaps in our education. [This alludes to the links, and it is fair comment that our education nowadays has gaps, compared even to say John of Damascus c 700 AD, who used logic to explore key concepts of being, drawing out facets of the matter]
The logic of being - possible worlds issue is pivotal, and is not a matter of empty words about things that do not exist that happen to be discussed in dictionaries. These logic of being/ontology issues, instead, provide key tools to help us analyse what is or may be, or what is not and cannot be. Such, for instance, helps us understand what an eternal being is, or an immortal soul, and why a soul would be immortal. It helps us understand why once a world is, we need something that is independent of cause, as root of worlds. (Our education nowadays focuses on a world of beings that are contingent and caused, even when it deals with things such as twoness, which are necessary and framework to any possible world.) KF PS: As we are contingent beings, manifestly, with a definite beginning, and as we are changing beings, we cannot be causally independent beings. The root of reality can be described as a soul, as Plato does in The Laws Bk X, having identified the soul as the life principle manifesting volition. That soul is of a different order from ours. Hence the description/ bill of requisites of what a world source/root being capable of grounding ought [we are morally governed creatures and we can only resolve the IS/OUGHT gap at root level] would be like.kairosfocus_{May 7, 2021
May
05
May
7
07
2021
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

KF
Paige, kindly look again at your non-substantial original response and what it rhetorically invites or suggests.
Obviously you do not know what “condescending” means. If you can ask a question without this attitude, I will respond. But given that you have not been able to do so I will just bow out of this conversation.paige_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

F/N: To see what our time misses educationally, here is John of Damascus, rated as last of the Fathers, c 700's AD:
All things are either created or uncreated.[--> logic, exhaustion of categories] Now, if they are created, then they are also definitely changeable, for things whose being originated with a change are definitely subject to change [--> contingency], whether it be by corruption or by voluntary alteration. If, on the other hand, they are uncreated, then it logically follows that they are definitely unchangeable. [--> the potential was filled up all along, independence of being] For, of those things whose being is contrary, the manner of being, which is to say, properties, is also contrary. Who, then, will not agree that all beings that fall within our experience, including even the angels, are subject to change and alteration and to being moved in various ways? The intellectual beings—by which I mean angels and souls and demons—change by free choice, progressing in good or receding, exerting themselves or slackening; whereas the rest change by generation or corruption, increase or decrease, change in quality or change in position. Consequently, things which are changeable must definitely be created. Created beings have certainly been created by something. But the creator must be uncreated, for, if he has been created, then he has certainly been created by some one else—and so on until we arrive at something which has not been created.Therefore, the creator is an uncreated and entirely unchange-able being. And what else would that be but God?
We would adjust language and concepts a bit and would draw on what we have learned or have had to address over the past 1400 years but the underlying reasoning should be familiar. Now. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Paige, kindly look again at your non-substantial original response and what it rhetorically invites or suggests. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Sandy
Respectful? We are just molecules in motion.What means to be respectful?
Why do you think that we are just molecules in motion?paige_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Paige But life is far too short to tolerate people who are not willing to be respectful.
Respectful? We are just molecules in motion.What means to be respectful?Sandy_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

KF
Your dismissive comment, trying to suggest dubiousness fails. It points to gaps in our education.
My initial discussion was with StephenB. If you are capable of contributing without being condescending as StephenB has, I welcome your participation. But life is far too short to tolerate people who are not willing to be respectful.paige_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Paige, impossible beings do not exist. Possible ones do or might. Necessary beings are the framework of worlds existing. Your dismissive comment, trying to suggest dubiousness fails. It points to gaps in our education. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

KF
Paige, the dictionaries describe aspects of necessary being, without delving on logic of being or possible worlds etc.
The other thing I have learned about definitions is that many words and terms define things that do not exist.paige_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus Sandy, the idea that there are intellectual virtues and duties seems to be at steep discount, a measure of where we are. Note what has happened repeatedly over past weeks when I pointed out that even objectors to first duties of reason are forced to appeal to same to try to get rhetorical traction for their claims. That is of course inconsistent on their part, but also shows that the first duties are inescapable, so true and self evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice etc. Willful disregard to such duties leads to guilty ignorance that puts false for true, darkness for light [and calls such darkness enlightenment!], evil for good, folly for wisdom and more, leading to marches of suicidal folly. Yes, some kinds of ignorance — based on willful negligence towards or outright refusal to do duty etc — are anything but innocent. KF
There are not " intelectual" virtues. When you take the responsibility to teach the truth blood with be shed .Yours. Psysically or as inner suffering in your life. This is the spiritual law which is more precise than any psysical law of the universe.Sandy_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Paige, the dictionaries describe aspects of necessary being, without delving on logic of being or possible worlds etc. Square circles are impossible of being in any world as core characteristics stand in mutual contradiction. Fires are contingent entities requiring fuel, oxidiser [look up Fluorine fires], heat, combustion chain reaction to begin or be sustained. Twoness must exist in any distinct possible world, it neither begins nor can it be turned off, it is part of the fabric for any particular world to exist, i.e. it is necessary and causally independent. (This happens to be part of why a core of Mathematics is absolutely universal, giving that discipline enormous power.) Again, gaps in our education system, here is an introduction. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Jerry, though a prolonged further exchange is not likely to be fruitful at this point, in all fairness WJM has earned regard beyond trollishness. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

WJM, absent a root of reality independent of antecedent causes, we do not have a basis for any possible world, whether conceptual or mental or physically instantiated, concrete or abstract . . . and this includes mathematical logic model worlds. From utter non-being, nothing can come -- were there ever such, it would forever obtain; as, what is not . . . in thought or fact or any mode we can imagine . . . can have no causal capability. Utter non being includes, no propositions so no descriptions of how a world is or may be. That a world is, requires independent being at root of reality, the debate is of what nature. Your objection fails from the root. Noted, for record and reference. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Paige: "Again, I don’t see any reason why the soul can not be a self-existent being." It is, nevertheless, the case. While you are doing your research, explore two more terms - "necessary being" and "contingent being." A self-existent being is also a necessary being and its relationship to all other (contingent) beings is inescapable. A necessary being is one that cannot not exist. It would be present in any universe under any set of conditions. All derivative being is contingent on (depends on) necessary being, meaning that the necessary being confers being on all other contingent beings. Again, as you study these things, remember that there are established rules of right reason (deductive logic, inductive logic, abductive logic, law of causation, law of non-contradiction, law of identity etc) that define the reasoning process. Just because WJM crowds hundreds of words into a series of carefully crafted paragraphs doesn't mean that his ideas are rational or that the way he describes the world is comprehensible -- they aren't and it isn't. He is on record as saying that he doesn't care about what is true or false. In keeping with that point, I would not presume to judge his motives, but I know enough about theology, philosophy, science, and logic to say, without reservation or qualification, that his world view is totally, manifestly, and irredeemably irrational.StephenB_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Jerry
The greatest mystery of all is existence!!
I don’t think anyone will argue with you on this.paige_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Now, I'll address one of KF's consistent objections to IRT; his claim that it is self-referential, and because of that, it is non-credible. IOW, if the only thing you have to check the accuracy of your ruler by is that same ruler, you have no way to determine the accuracy of your ruler. KF, of course, raises this objection from an ERT perspective: that there must be an objective, independent-of-experience ruler (world) by which we can calibrate our experiential rulers, or else we cannot acquire true knowledge. Setting aside the science which has disproved this notion of an external (of universal mind) objective world, and the self-evident truth that all we actually have to measure our experiences by are our experiences (regardless of where the information for the experience comes from,) we can see how this objection does not apply to IRT. Under IRT, the fundamental "rulers" used to acquire "true knowledge" about our existence, like logic and math, still exist and are still necessary in the acquisition of true or well-warranted knowledge. Under IRT, however, we recognize that these "objective" rulers are not being used on an "external world," but are rather are being used to measure and evaluate our experiences - not just because they are "useful," but because they are necessary for any conscious entity to have any comprehensible experience by which they can direct observational will - in simple terms, unless you have comprehensible experiences that can be turned into knowledge about your experiences, and predict them to some degree, you have no discernable or understandable means of choosing where to direct your observation into "the next sequences" of experience. You can't make an informed, rational choice. As we can see, things like logic and math are necessary, fundamental aspects of any sentient, willful observer. Logic and math underlie the process of the selection of information and the processing of that information into experience. This is why the apparent "external world" will always be understandable in terms of logic and math, etc; logic and math (and other such necessary "rulers") is that which forms and guides what we call "the external world," which is really, in actuality, not an external world: it is the world of our experiences. So, "self-referential incoherence" is only a problem if one assumes they have anything other than their own experiences to refer to, compare, identify and discern between, or IOW to have knowledge about. Although logic and math, etc., are universal with respect to all individual experiential perspectives, they are still experiences; we experience them, their efficacy, their necessity as the root rulers of all possible consciously coherent perspectives, as that which provides true knowledge about our experiences. Thus, under this version of IRT (and, logically speaking, necessarily true regardless of one's ERT or IRT,) knowledge is always about one's experiences and obtained by using experiential rulers (logic, math, etc.) in understanding our experiences and making choices going forward to acquire experiences we desire. We cannot, even in theory, obtain knowledge about an "external of mind" world because even under ERT we have no direct access to it to check it against our experience of it. This explains how "self-reference," in terms of all things being in mind and being about experiences, is a valid means of gaining true and well-warranted knowledge. This brings up an interesting question: how can we acquire knowledge that "all possible experiences" or an other experiential reality exists other than our own? That we can acquire them? Isn't this "the same as" making a claim about an ERT?" IOW, doesn't the claim that "something else" exists in universal mind other than my personal experience fall under the same hardship as making claims about an external-of-mind world? Isn't "external of self" the same as "external of mind?" Maybe I'll get around to addressing that soon.William J Murray_{May 6, 2021
May
05
May
6
06
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply