Ken Francis writes: “Proof that God placed order out of chaos in the universe. Each ball has a 50-50 chance of bouncing right or left off of each peg as it traverses the board, but every time the result is a bell curve. More proof of Intelligent Design.”
The comments are interesting.
Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd
This is a physical illustration of Pascal’s Triangle, combinatorial numbers, and a binomial distribution. It’s mathematical foundation goes back to 2 + 2 = 4. I used to explain this to high school students.
Random chance is a proof of intelligent design?
If you think that then there really is no point debating the science or mathematics involved at all.
I oddly have to agree with 1 & 2 here: the “bell curve” is merely an artefact of the probabilities involved at each step down. Given enough falling pieces, the results revert to the mean, allowing a precise “prediction” of the bell shape. You might even say that the bell curve “emerges” from the probability rule. This is similar to how the gas laws “emerge” from the random movement of molecules in a container: individual behaviour trends to statistical definiteness as N becomes large.
That doesn’t give creative powers to “emergence”, so don’t assume this supports the, “consciousness emerges from the brain” meme, or the, “complex life emerges from randomness” magic.
to FastE at 3. I can’t see anything odd about agreeing with what I wrote in 1, as I just described the mathematical concepts being illustrated.
Also the link to wherever the quote came from doesn’t work. I’d be interested in seeing it.
re 2, to JVL. As Fast E says, “Given enough falling pieces, the results revert to the mean, allowing a precise “prediction” of the bell shape.”
Simpler example: throw a six-sided die 6 million times, and graph the results. You will have approximately one million of each number. In many situations probabilities express a pattern with enough repetitions.
I’m not sure how that has anything to do with ID, or “emergence.”
There are but a few pathways that end up in either of the side pockets, while many pathways lead to the middle pockets. If only the side pockets are filled up we would know that the system was rigged.
It’s more precise than that: the “many” are, mathematically, the combinatorial numbers as illustrated by Pascal’s triangle. If you look closely at the video, the expected numbers are printed under each peg, and the last row is the 11th. For the 11th row, the numbers are 1 11 55 165 330 462 462 330 165 55 11 1, which adds up to 2^11, or 2048. Therefore, for instance, the odds of being in one of the two middle columns is 462/2048 = 22.5 %.
Actually, it disproves Einstein’s objection that God doesn’t play with dice. LOL
Apparently, God loves probability, butterflies in Brazil, permutations in genetics, and all sorts of fun stuff!
But seriously, no, I don’t think probabilities have anything to do with intelligent design.
Intelligent Design is simply approaching a poorly understood phenomenum as if it were intelligently designed rather than random junk, some of which just happens to work and most of it doesn’t.
-Q
VL@7 Those numbers do not indicate the possible pathways, right?
Yes, they do. They is only one way to bounce left every time and fall in the far left column*. There are 11 ways to bounce left 10 times and right one and land in the second column. They are 462 ways (pathways) to land in one of the middle columns. That number is a combinatorial number, called 11 choose 6 (abbreviated 11C6).
I’d be glad to explain more if you like, but maybe you were just checking on that fact.
Combinatorial numbers show up all sorts of places , like computing the probability of poker hands, and also in the binomial theorem for (a + b) ^ n, such as (x + 2)^4.
*This device seems to have some extra columns because some of the balls can “escape” to the far left or right. The devices I’ve seen have forced the balls into one of the permissible columns.
Folks, the Quincunx shows by striking demonstration the depth to which logic of structure and quantity pervades our world and points onward to the utter, eerie universality of core mathematics in any possible world as a necessary being structure; the very same issue Eugene Wigner highlighted. The world is so mathematically pervaded, indeed possible being is so mathematically pervaded that it is manifestly akin to mind rather than to utterly non rational chaos; indeed, in many cases, randomness reveals an underlying ordered structure, as this very case demonstrates. Onward, lieth statistical thermodynamics, via the classic case of 500 or 1,000 coins and their distribution, thence the threshold search space challenge at the core of ID, how to get to FSCO/I expressive bit patterns by the blind chance and mechanical necessity the Galton Board illustrates. That context is remarkable, not trivial and readily dismissible. KF
Kairosfocus: Folks, the Quincunx shows by striking demonstration the depth to which logic of structure and quantity pervades our world and points onward to the utter, eerie universality of core mathematics in any possible world as a necessary being structure;
A being that can violate the laws that point to its existence?
Why create a logical system of existence and then just break that system on a whim?
VL@
We must be looking at different videos then. I see 13 rows (the top of the 28 columns included of course) and I see no printed numbers.
– – – –
edit: I was mistaken about the printed numbers. Now I see them.
JVL, I take it you are trying to object to miracles, on the outdated view that they are more or less arbitrary — “whim” — violations of universal, somehow necessary (so, exceptionless) laws of the physical world. That fails, starting with, empirical investigation may show the usual pattern, but that such is claimed no-exception-universal is a philosophical assertion not an empirical inference. In short, Hume begged a few questions. The physicalist reductionism isn’t even capable of establishing a context for responsible rational freedom to think beyond GIGO limited computation, so such reasoning is automatically self discrediting. And once one sees the validity of rational agent freedom to be a first cause, then that shifts our thought drastically. Next, the actual theistic view is that in Him we live, move and have our being, where He upholds all things by his word of power. So, as the moulded clay pot answering back to the potter, why should we find fault with a physical world open to first cause mind, whether ourselves typing up arguments and objections, or the ultimate first cause? Then, observe what a miracle is, an extraordinary act and sign that points beyond the mundane order, so miracles REQUIRE that there be a highly predictable mundane order, BTW, as does morally responsible rationality. In a general chaos, nothing would be outstanding or a sign for anything happens any way without rhyme or reason. So, finding such a general order akin to mind is itself a sign of Reason Himself at work, and that for good reason He should draw our attention to a higher order with the higher ordered workings we call miracles, signs and wonders is in fact a reasonable view. One thing is for sure, miracles are not whimsical, chaotic magic. Think of the astonishment of a flatlander on experiencing a higher order 3 d object passing through his mundane planar world. A third dimension, impossible nonsense, everything is in our plane and nothing beyond! KF
Kairosfocus: JVL, I take it you are trying to object to miracles, on the outdated view that they are more or less arbitrary — “whim” — violations of universal, somehow necessary (so, exceptionless) laws of the physical world.
Your hypothesised necessary being can violate the laws of science (which, it is claimed, point to that being’s existence) whenever that being wants to. That being may not find the moments arbitrary but they can make the choice whereas we cannot.
That fails, starting with, empirical investigation may show the usual pattern, but that such is claimed no-exception-universal is a philosophical assertion not an empirical inference. In short, Hume begged a few questions.
Do I take it that you don’t agree that the laws of the universe are not universal for non-necessary beings in that universe? If you mean something different then perhaps you could spend some time writing in a less flowery manner.
The physicalist reductionism isn’t even capable of establishing a context for responsible rational freedom to think beyond GIGO limited computation, so such reasoning is automatically self discrediting.
Umm . . . hold on . . . because you think we are not limited to purely physical processes then we are also not limited to the physical laws of the universe? Again, you really need to work on your prose.
And once one sees the validity of rational agent freedom to be a first cause, then that shifts our thought drastically.
I don’t see you violating the laws of physics.
Next, the actual theistic view is that in Him we live, move and have our being, where He upholds all things by his word of power. So, as the moulded clay pot answering back to the potter, why should we find fault with a physical world open to first cause mind, whether ourselves typing up arguments and objections, or the ultimate first cause?
So . . . we shouldn’t question the point of our existence and the purpose of the creator ’cause we’re lesser beings even though we’ve been given free will and the ability to reason? Is that it? If some daft woman had resisted eating from the tree of knowledge we’d be better off being naked, dumb and happy? But . . . didn’t someone later say that all our sins were forgiven? I’m confused.
Then, observe what a miracle is, an extraordinary act and sign that points beyond the mundane order, so miracles REQUIRE that there be a highly predictable mundane order, BTW, as does morally responsible rationality
Are you saying that miracles can be predicted if you could understand some theoretical higher . . . no, you are saying that miracles can only be miracles if they have a predictable, law abiding order to push back against. But . . . wait . . . the creator came up with laws of the universe and created us as beings subject to those laws so . . . that we would recognise miracles when they occurred? Is that it? This creator being wants us to be in awe when they break the physical laws of the universe?
In a general chaos, nothing would be outstanding or a sign for anything happens any way without rhyme or reason. So, finding such a general order akin to mind is itself a sign of Reason Himself at work, and that for good reason He should draw our attention to a higher order with the higher ordered workings we call miracles, signs and wonders is in fact a reasonable view.
That sounds like a circular argument to me: we need laws so that when they are broken we know someone can break them. AND the whole bit of reasoning falls apart if there are no miracles. Doesn’t it?
One thing is for sure, miracles are not whimsical, chaotic magic. Think of the astonishment of a flatlander on experiencing a higher order 3 d object passing through his mundane planar world. A third dimension, impossible nonsense, everything is in our plane and nothing beyond!
A bad analogy. 3D space follows predictable laws and rules even if a 2D being is unaware of them. In other words, in that analogy, there are no miracles.
So, what if what you see as miracles are bleed-throughs from some higher dimension which we cannot perceive. They aren’t actually miracles but are following rules and laws we are unaware of because of our limited perspective. Then there is no need for a higher being that is breaking our rules, it’s just a being or object in a 4D or 5D space interacting with ours.
I can live with that. No miracles just higher dimensions.
So, Origenes, are you satisfied that 462 is the number of pathways to each of the middle columns? Was that ever in question in your mind, or were you just uncertain what numbers I was talked about? I know they are not easy to see..
And to KF: I at least didn’t say that the Galton Board and the mathematics behind were trivial or dismissable, and both FastE and I pointed out that it is common for probabilistic events to create a pattern when there are enough instances. No one is denying, or trivializing, the fact that math is full of neat and not obvious things, or that the physical world can instantiate that math in physical ways. We don’t all come to the same philosophical conclusions that you, or Ken Francis, reach, but that involves some leaps of faith. That shouldn’t stop people from being able to discuss the math.
It is inaccurate for you to claim I’m calling the situation trivial: possible even a strawman. 🙂
And how did this conversation come to be about miracles?
Viola Lee: And how did this conversation come to be about miracles?
God works in wondrous and mysterious ways.
JVL, again, the point is that physical laws, unlike core logic of being, are not necessary constraints on being. KF
Kairosfocus: the point is that physical laws, unlike core logic of being, are not necessary constraints on being.
Look, you speculated that a system of predictable laws were necessary for a being who can violated those laws to show off their abilities. Which is just huh?
Then you drew an analogy with Flatland and, maybe, miracles being like a 3D being or phenomena interacting with a 2D ‘universe’ which has no ‘physical’ explanation for what they are seeing. BUT we know that 3D world also obeys set rules and principles which means that what the 2D being observes are NOT miracles, no rules are being broken. Following that analogy it sounds like you’re suggesting that some of the ‘miracles’ we observe are simply misunderstood phenomena from higher dimensions so . . . no rule breaking involved.
And then you just, sort of, backed down from all that speculation and supposition and just offered a milquetoast statement implying that physical laws are not as important as human derived, human developed logic. Is that right?
So, can your necessary being violate laws of logic? Why or why not?
JVL, pretzel version of what I said and in this context violated is inappropriate phrasing, you are also projecting arbitrariness when there is a longstanding understanding that is not arbitrary. KF
Kairosfocus: pretzel version of what I said and in this context violated is inappropriate phrasing.
Well, clear up what you said. Here’s a start: can your necessary being violate/break/ignore/sidestep/bypass laws of logic?
JVL, you were already given enough above. The understanding of empirically defined laws of nature is unable to warrant more than the usual course of the physical world, it is simply unable to bar that there may be higher laws or agencies at work. To infer such a bar is to impose an unwarranted philosophical imposition, one that starts to run into trouble with having enough freedom to be freely rational, which is already self defeating. Next, ethical theism with room for extraordinary signs and wonders requires that there be a generally predictable mundane order. Then, as in such theism the ordinary way is as much sustained by the divine will as what would be a sign or wonder, there is no breach of something that somehow forces a mundane order to be utterly necessary. Similarly, that signs are provided for good reason removes arbitrariness and whimsy. Finally, we must learn the lesson of Flatland about the gap between our expectations and what may be reality beyond our understanding. KF
to JVL: I think KF answered a different question than you asked. Yes, I think he says, the physical laws of nature can be overridden by some higher laws or agencies. Miracles can happen.
But your question is, I think, is whether the laws of logic can be overridden, which is a different question.
JVL
I think your view is long-outdated. Post-Hume, there are no laws, rather regularities with the very important proviso that certain things will happen in the usual (predicted) way as long as the circumstances are not changed drastically.
Besides, no scientific model is capable of taking into account all factors in all possible cases. So a scientific model is just a model, more or less adequate. Whatever the model, a cognitive bias is inescapable. It is just the nature of scientific inquiry necessarily having to deal with the epistemic cut of the observed vs the observer.
Divine miracles are not magic and they have a moral meaning. They happen provided someone may benefit from them spiritually.
Kairosfocus: you were already given enough above.
It’s really cute when you stomp your feet and pout.
The understanding of empirically defined laws of nature is unable to warrant more than the usual course of the physical world, it is simply unable to bar that there may be higher laws or agencies at work
Higher laws implies things that are universally true. True for who?
To infer such a bar is to impose an unwarranted philosophical imposition, one that starts to run into trouble with having enough freedom to be freely rational, which is already self defeating.
So . . . there is no bar . . . so there is some higher order of laws and principles or . . . not?
Next, ethical theism with room for extraordinary signs and wonders requires that there be a generally predictable mundane order.
Right, a set of laws and rules that the creator can break/violate/ignore/bypass to prove their divinity. Got that.
Then, as in such theism the ordinary way is as much sustained by the divine will as what would be a sign or wonder, there is no breach of something that somehow forces a mundane order to be utterly necessary.
What? What does that mean? A sign of wonder? Are you saying that no matter what level or realm or dimension the divine must always be able to break those rules/laws/precepts? How could such a being be part of a logical, scientific outlook?
Similarly, that signs are provided for good reason removes arbitrariness and whimsy.
Not if they go against basic laws of logic and physics.
Finally, we must learn the lesson of Flatland about the gap between our expectations and what may be reality beyond our understanding.
AGAIN, in Flatland, no laws or rules or precepts were broken. There were no miracles.
So . . .
Viola Lee: But your question is, I think, is whether the laws of logic can be overridden, which is a different question.
And, I think he’s avoiding that question. What do you think?
EugeneS: Divine miracles are not magic and they have a moral meaning. They happen provided someone may benefit from them spiritually.
So, can they be evaluated from a consistent, logical, set of laws and precepts? Can they be ‘tested’ for validity?
I think KF would say that the laws of logic and math are necessary in all possible worlds, and thus can’t be overridden. I don’t why he didn’t say that in response to your question.
JVL [attn VL], for record, the primary laws of logic are framework for any distinct possible world. Just to have such a world W distinct from W’ a near neighbour, distinct identity is present with its corollaries. These are entirely compatible with there being miracles, which definitely seems to be a problem. Meanwhile the analysis I outlined is hardly a personal idiosyncrasy, we start with the point that no empirical investigation can of its epistemic strength determine that physical laws are universal, necessary and thus final and complete. Were such physicality the limit of reality, that would rule out the responsible rational freedom to think, warrant and so know. GIGO limited computationalism is sub rational and untrustworthy if claimed as an ultimate. That is before even the well founded rule that no complex program of significance is wholly bug free, I have even seen it argued that that starts with hello world. KF
PS, what do you imagine I meant by contrasting physical laws and necessary conditions? You have been present over the span of years when I pointed out and published on universality of core logic and related matters such as NZQRCR* and tied relationships. So, sorry, I don’t buy the claims you are now making.
Viola Lee: I think KF would say that the laws of logic and math are necessary in all possible worlds, and thus can’t be overridden. I don’t why he didn’t say that in response to your question.
Because then his necessary being is limited. And constrained. And then people like you and me would start picking at the limits . . . what are they? How far do they extend? Easier to just try and push the narrative that they don’t exist.
VL,
kindly observe, JVL:
Notice, too, what JVL objected to, in context:
There is a distinction made between our world and the core of math etc that is necessary. Physical laws established on observed patterns do not have necessary being character. Their basis is even unable to establish them as utterly uniform in our world.
And obviously from the outset above I spoke to core logic of being including structure and quantity as of necessary character framework to any possible world. Such laws do not forbid miracles and miracles are non arbitrary, they are not whims or the like. Miracles are not magic.
KF
JVL, I don’t think in KF’s view the necessity of the laws of logic and math is a limitation on a necessary being, but rather a characteristic of a necessary being. A necessary being can override contingencies such as physical laws but it can’t override necessary aspects of necessity such as the laws of logic and math.
Just trying to help KF out here by saying what I think he is saying in simpler language.
In respect to Galton’s Board, for instance: suppose we had a huge board with a million balls and deep enough columns to hold them all. God could make 500,000 go down each of the far columns by overriding physical laws, but he could make the mathematical expected value for the center columns anything other than 22.5%. He can’t make 2 + 2 not equal 4, or e^(i•pi) not equal -1. Those are necessary parts of his own being that he can’t override.
That’s what I think KF would say.
JVL
The answer is yes, but it is a ‘yes’ based on the criteria of a genuine historical account of some single extraordinary event in the past rather than the physics of a repeatable pattern. Since such an event transcends the physical, the usual conditions of a physical test may not be met entirely. Our conclusion as to the validity of this event is based on an account of trustworthy sources (witnesses whose testimony is beyond reasonable doubt), and is subject to verification via personal experience. People with similar experience of a geniune meeting with the divine will attest to it. Here there is always an element of doubt or a choice not to accept it for the mind, because God does not want to force us into belief but expects our free decision based on the disposition of our heart, in each such case. ‘Son, give me your heart’, Proverbs 23:26.
Man, we went from Galton’s Board to Jesus Christ. Seems like all roads lead to Rome.
JVL and VL, do you know what KF means by “ethical theism”? Doesn’t every variation of theism claim to be ethical? Or am I missing something?
Great question. I’m off for a while, but I’d like to try to describe what I think KF believes, succinctly. Oddly enough, if you google “ethical theism” you won’t find much. I think KF’s beliefs lie in some tradition in which he was schooled, but I don’t know what one.
“But your question is, I think, is whether the laws of logic can be overridden, which is a different question.”
Even though I have not been asked I will butt in anyway, currently I am in the no camp.
Vivid.
Since this set of comments has morphed into miracles, here is a piece about that subject:
https://thopid.blogspot.com/2018/12/some-models-of-miracles.html
I agree with Vivid, and as I wrote in 33, I think KF would agree: the necessary being could not override the laws of logic or math as they are necessary also. I think within the system of thought we are discussing, this is clear.
to Ford. Here is what I understand of KF’s ethical theism (ET)philosophy.
By a chain of philosophical reasoning, including the self-evident nature of the three main laws of logic, ET concludes that there most be a necessary being, and being necessary it must be omni-everything: present, potent, and knowing. Furthermore, ET concludes that this necessary being must be all-good, and therefore the source of ethics also, which includes some self-evident moral beliefs analogous to the self-evident beliefs of logic and math.
That’s my brief summary.
JVL
“Because then his necessary being is limited. And constrained. And then people like you and me would start picking at the limits
By all means please start picking
Vivid
VL@41, thanks for the response. But what has me confused is that logic suggests that if there is “ethical theism”, there must also be “unethical theism”. Which, if the necessary being is all good, is contradictory.
KF wouldn’t think this, but I agree with you, with a disclaimer. I think that one could argue for a “necessary being” that manifested logic, math, and a finely-tuned universe but had no concern with the lives of human beings. Such a necessary being could be called an a-ethical being, not unethical. Such a universe would not be concerned with ethics one way or another.
A quote attributed to Einstein is “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind..” This would be such a conception.
I’ve discussed this several times with KF. My position is that he makes unjustified, faith-based leaps from the necessities that one might see in math and logic to the conclusion that there are also ethical necessities.
FP, descriptive emphasis. It is possible to think of God — or more broadly, the root of reality — without reference to the ethical, but once one recognises that the is-ought gap points to the source of this and other possible worlds, and that our own reality requires adequate grounding of our own moral government, the ethical ground is part of the problem of ultimate origins. In short, there is a coherence challenge, one further constrained by the implications of implying that moral government is delusional, ungrounded, merely emotive or cultural or otherwise a trivial matter: undermining and/or self defeatingly discrediting our rational responsible freedom; not to mention opening the door to nihilism and raw will to power. Notice, Provine’s nihilistic assertions. Recall, lawless oligarchy is, historically, the natural state of government and to challenge it justice must have adequate roots. Anselm’s formulation may be debatable but his instinct was right, matters of the logic of being thus of the root of reality are central to understanding ourselves and our ultimate origin. And, the Hebrew prophets from Moshe on were right to highlight the goodness, lovingkindness, holiness and uprightness of God as pivotal to understanding him and our own moral-rational constitution. KF
PS, I refocus, the issue in the OP, and thus the quincunx:
VL, yes, logic of structure and quantity, logic of being, distinct identity [notice, close connexion to being] and its close corollaries are fabric to any possible world, as I worked out here. This involves what we could call world zero, root reality from which this and any other possible world would spring. Where a PW is a sufficient description [cluster of propositions] to describe a way this or any other world is, could be or could become. W0, root of reality is a blank slate for where things come from. Before we explore in detail, it simply points to the causal-temporal thermodynamic order including ourselves and notices an arrow . . . a familiar example of a vector . . . points forward but that means we may look backwards too. So, looking back and bearing in mind causal and logic of being adequacy more generally, what do we find? For one, that there is no distinct possible world that does not involve N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc, core math pervades all possible worlds. Including W0, thus can be seen as part of the baked in characteristics. Is w0 a quasi physical, quantum foam multiverse with sub cosmi bubbling up? A candidate, now that oscillating universes are off the table on thermodynamic grounds. Some sort of past infinite quasi-physical structure otherwise, as with the classic steady state universe? A more generic candidate. And so forth, where God, too is a serious candidate. However, the logical, structural challenge of an actually completed transfinite span of causally successive years [etc] leads to the conclusion this is an infeasible supertask. We need necessary being as were there ever utter non being such would forever obtain. Root of reality must be necessary being. And such must be causally adequate for responsibly rational, significantly free and morally governed creatures, us. More flows from this. KF
F/N: Notice, that a Euclidean plane square circle or the like would be impossible of being. In no possible world are these feasible. Of what is possible we have the contingent and necessary. Contingent beings such as a fire, need not be in every possible world, they are causally dependent. A necessary being by contrast is part of the fabric that makes any world possible. We live in a going concern world, so there are necessary entities. Such include core mathematics and that is the secret of its power. The quincunx illustrates a case of that. KF
VL
The demarkation line between science and metaphysics does exist though. By the nature of this blog, we are really discussing questions in the area around the demarkation from both sides. Somebody mentioned miracles, so I see nothing surprising in this. Especially, given that this very word was used more than once by some prominent physicists.
@47
Just a small note: mathematics need not hold in every possible world. Imagine a world that was a sheer homogeneous plenum. In such a world it would be impossible to identify any objects, hence no identity conditions. It would be a world without structure, without quantity. The axioms of geometry and of arithmetic could not be used. Yet such a world is perfectly conceivable without contradiction.
This suggests that the set of all mathematically possible worlds is smaller than the set of all logically possible worlds but larger than the set of all physically possible worlds.
VL, the problem is causal sufficiency. To illustrate, the underlying appeals in arguments in this thread turn on first duties [which includes first principles] of reason. That is because of their branch on which we all sit character, which is why they are self evident: responsible reason is morally governed. Where, we cannot have such delusional or a mere convention or personal feeling, such moves are self defeating and reduce us to grand delusion. We need an adequate causal root for not only our world but for us in it, thus the root of reality — the only effective level to bridge is and ought on pain of ungrounded ought [including oughts of reason] — faces a bill of requisites to be adequate grounds for moral government. That is unpalatable in an age that has a quiet love affair with that most dangerous one, nihilism, but it is clearly there. Worse, on worldviews level best explanation, requiring comparative difficulties (no, it’s not just put up how you wish things were) there is just one serious candidate: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, one worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. (BTW, this summarises God as envisioned on ethical theism.) Which of course is open to proposed alternatives, but they have to be coherent, adequate causally and more: ________ predictably, harder to fill in than imagined. For example, Q-foam multiverses do not account for mind or moral government of reason and are self referentially self defeating on credibility of reason. Pantheism or panentheism collapses ought into is in the end, it cannot ground a distinction, just vs unjust, hence the issue of karma or the like. Of course, there is a world of difference between worldview inadequacies and moral awareness, this is about adequacy of roots. While there is a literal infinity of necessary entities, from NZQRCR* etc for starters, none of these are causally adequate. Picking and choosing preferred NB attributes buffet style does not work with comparative difficulties, nor does putting the philosophical telescope to the blind eye. And so forth. KF
KF @
You convincingly argue that any possible world must necessarily be structured in accord with logic and math, therefore logic and math necessarily exist in any possible world. To be clear, the necessary existence for logic and math is derived from any possible world. Put differently, any possible world brings logic and math into existence. Inversely, if there were no worlds at all, then neither logic nor math would necessarily exist.
Here is the problem: unlike logic and math, the ‘necessary’ being that explains any possible world, cannot derive necessary existence from what it explains.
A being that explains a possible world is itself outside of a possible world. A being that explains any possible world, does not require a world to be in. It is in itself and that must suffice because not everything can be in a world. If any possible world itself requires a world to be in, then we have an infinite regress of worlds.
A being that explains a possible world, cannot derive necessary existence from what it explains. This means that the existence of such a being is in need of an explanation other than “it is a necessary being”
PM1, not all of mathematics, just the core. Once there is a distinct possible world W, marked apart from W’ a near neighbour, instantly 0,1,2 obtain thence NZQRCR*, etc. This is a general result on an abstract order for any PW descriptive set, it matters not if your world is “a world that was a sheer homogeneous plenum,” say P, once that is distinguishable from any neighbour that is not quite the same, there is an attribute in the set for P that is not in P’ say P’ is just shy of complete homogeneity or something like that, which makes your description mean P is pure homog, an attribute not in P’. The action of distinct identity is on the trans-world barrier, not as such within the world. From P vs P’, in P we have an attribute that can be constructed P = {P’|A}, and obviously there are PW’s distinct from P. Those that are not are simply alternative descriptions of P. 0–> |, 1 –> A, another 1 –> P’, so 0,1,2. BTW, there is simple unity, there is complex unity. Apply the von Neumann construction and extensions and voila, NZQRCR* etc with all of their abstract properties. Core mathematics is part of the fabric of any distinct possible world, giving it universal power. Of course all of this pivots on a going concern reality with something able to ponder such, but our world has that. We still need W0 and have to address us. KF
Origenes, the only assumption or rather observation is that we exist in a going concern world. That requires explanation, a world root. But this world is contingent, others are possible, that requires a reality root. Where, were there utter non being such would forever obtain, what utterly is not, non-being cannot cause what is. A world implies that something always was, the debate is of what nature. A quasi physical causal temporal system cannot be that root, too, as it would have to span infinitely many years an infeasible supertask, another problem for Q-foams. If a going concern world is, something always was that is beyond the quasi physical order. That is a necessary being causally adequate to cause worlds with creatures like us, responsibly rational and significantly free, so morally governed. If we are not these, we cannot reason credibly. And necessary being is ontologically primary, it is not derivative, it is part of the fabric for any world to be. What is derivative is our use of reason to recognise and warrant — come to know — that such a root of reality is. And, to further realise that such is causally adequate to explain us. That adequacy is a tall order indeed. KF
KF @
The existence of the being that creates any possible world is unexplained.
at 50, PM writes, “Just a small note: mathematics need not hold in every possible world. Imagine a world that was a sheer homogeneous plenum. In such a world it would be impossible to identify any objects, hence no identity conditions. It would be a world without structure, without quantity.”
I’ve read this point from other philosophers (can’t remember what famous one), and have mentioned it here in the past. The core laws of logic require distinct entities, but even in our world such sometimes do not exist. Therefore we creat abstract distinctions that are more certain that the fuzzy boundaries in the world. This can lead us to thinking we know things more certainly that we do because we confuse the abstract things we have created with the real world.
Kairosfocus: not all of mathematics, just the core.
Huh? You think you can separate mathematics into parts, some of which are not core?
Just out of curiosity . . . what parts of mathematics would you consider ‘core’?
KF writes at 45,
Notice that KF asserts that “that our own reality requires adequate grounding of our own moral government” and that “ethical ground is part of the problem of ultimate origins.” These are the leaps-of-faith to which I refer, and for which there is not a analogous argument to that made for logic and math.
Notice, rather, that argument is from consequences: KF’s own apocalyptic, slippery-slope worldview leads him to believe that not “recognising” what he thinks we should recognize “opens the door to nihilism and raw will to power.”
So the “ethics” part of his ethical theism is driven by his personal faith, and by his beliefs about human nature, and that to believe that if there is no ethical framework to the root of reality, the only alternative is moral nihilism.
Hope this helps explain KF to you.
VL/41 & 44
Nice, concise comments…
Origenes, necessary being is an explanation, no world is possible without such. KF
JVL, yes, there is a lot of Math that sets up a special, arbitrary logic model world that has properties specific to that world or domain, and one could set up a similar domain another way. The core we address is present in any possible world. KF
VL, NZQRCR* etc are always present, once you have a distinct world, that includes in a fuzzy domain. Notice, a, i.e. one is already present as a specific quantity. And more. KF
VL, 58:
1: You imply, that I have made errors of reasoning and accuracy to reality, with the further implication of failure of duty. That is already a case of sitting on the branch of first duties of reason.
2: That ethical grounding goes back to roots of reality is an allusion to Hume’s guillotine. There is but one level of reality where the is-ought gap can be comprehensively bridged, root of reality. Otherwise, there will be ungrounded ought. This is just one particular form of the point that a going concern causal-temporal world requires ultimate and adequate causal grounding. Such are not non sequiturs.
3: I am not the one arguing or implying or inviting that moral government and objective moral claims fail at grounding. Provine is, others of similar persuasion are, cultural relativism is widespread, subjectivism and emotivism are significantly present. The invitation to nihilism is real. And
4: given that our sense of conscience is that we are duty-bound, worldviews that imply, invite or assert that such are ill founded impulses or psychosocial conditioning or operant conditioning or class conditioning directly lead to the import that our moral sense is delusional, is founded in myths, is psychologically explained [away] etc. Delusion may be a hard word but it is a plain one. Do you want me to quote Marx in extenso on the point, to add to, say, Crick, provine having already been highlighted? As in, say:
5: As, the first duties of reason are also first law, grounds for onward law, such nihilism etc do invite lawless ruthless factions that seize power. 100 million ghosts from C20 nod in agreement.
6: Just day before yesterday, I slipped on a mossy stairway, luckily, I caught myself. There are real slippery slopes and once started they tend to accelerate the process. This then becomes an apt, instructive metaphor for circumstances where a slip easily becomes a slide and typically ends in disaster. I put it to you, for cause, that the widespread dismissal of objective moral knowledge, rise of relativism, subjectivism, agit prop in support of ever more bizarre practices, rise of legal positivism as dominant philosophy of law and more point to lawlessness, nihilism and consequences. Do I need to remind of Machiavelli’s point on hectic fever and political disasters?
7: Ethical theism simply notes that there are longstanding traditions of thought and a broader philosophy that ground reality in God as a necessary, maximally great and thoroughly good being. The traditions are phenomena, the philosophical concept and view is generic and logically antecedent to such.
8: The ethical is there as a descriptive emphasis, theism across the history of our civilisation would not recognise a morally indifferent or evil entity as God. Which until five seconds ago has been commonplace, readily acknowledged understanding.
KF
Kairosfocus: yes, there is a lot of Math that sets up a special, arbitrary logic model world that has properties specific to that world or domain, and one could set up a similar domain another way. The core we address is present in any possible world.
I just don’t think that is true. So I’d like to to come up with some examples . . . some math we know and use on Earth which might not apply/be the same elsewhere.
re 63, to KF
For illustrative purposes, i’ll respond to KF, although we have waded in this river many times (but it’s always a slightly different river.)
KF: “You imply, that I have made errors of reasoning and accuracy to reality, with the further implication of failure of duty.”
Yes, although my point is that your reasoning is mostly assertions without a logical chain of reasoning behind them, and I believe you are inaccurate about some key aspects of reality. So, guilty as charged.
As to failure of duty, I don’t subscribe to your “duty theory”, so I can’y imply that you’ve failed at it.
2. KF: “There is but one level of reality where the is-ought gap can be comprehensively bridged, root of reality. Otherwise, there will be ungrounded ought.” This is just one particular form of the point that a going concern causal-temporal world requires ultimate and adequate causal grounding. Such are not non sequiturs.
There is no bridge across the is-ought gap. “Is” is about reality. “Ought” is about judgments people make about how to behave. There is always a gap that is filled in by individual choice.
3: KF: “I am not the one arguing or implying or inviting that moral government and objective moral claims fail at grounding. Provine is, others of similar persuasion are, cultural relativism is widespread, subjectivism and emotivism are significantly present. The invitation to nihilism is real.”
Yes, there are such philosophers. But it also belief that they are correct, and you lean on them to support your own views. I think Provine et al are wrong, and I believe you are wrong.
4 is just quoting such people. There are lots of ways to think they are wrong and that you are wrong.
5 and 6. Is just going into your political views, focussing on the nihilism that drives your fears.
7: KF “Ethical theism simply notes that there are longstanding traditions of thought and a broader philosophy that ground reality in God as a necessary, maximally great and thoroughly good being. The traditions are phenomena, the philosophical concept and view is generic and logically antecedent to such.”
Yes, you present a particular philosophical tradition. Tradition is not a logical argument. Many people (other than the nihilists that are the foundation of your dissent) have offered criticisms of that tradition, and alternative viewpoints that that offer a positive, realistic view of the nature of reality, human and otherwise,
8: KF “The ethical is there as a descriptive emphasis, theism across the history of our civilisation would not recognise a morally indifferent or evil entity as God. Which until five seconds ago has been commonplace, readily acknowledged understanding.”
I have no idea what happened five seconds ago, but, again, there are solid perspectives (not nihilistic) that don’t include an entity that takes notice of human affairs. I know you totally reject such perspectives, which you have the right to do, and you have the right to make clear assertions about what you believe.
But your assertions about the “ethical” part of “ethical theism”, which is the point Ford brought up in the first place, are faith-based assertions, fueled by your monolithic contrast with no perspective other than nihilisms. Your assertions about a necessary bridge of a gap between is and ought and the root of reality are not supported by any argument other than without such as bridge, nihilism follows: argumentum ad consequentiam,
That’s it for me, unless you have anything new to say.
I agree with JVL. KF, You didn’t answer his question at 61: which part is core, and which is not. Where is the dividing line? Can you give an example of something that is not core, and that could exist in one world but not another: that is not a part of all possible worlds? Can you be more specific?
JVL, such variable cases are often set up as axiomatic systems where on changing certain axioms one gets a different frame that may be equally valid. The classic case in point is Euclidean geometry and its famous fifth postulate where across C19, there emerged various non Euclidean Geometries. I would think that standard and fuzzy sets are another case. The development of various non standard logic systems insofar as they are expressed as special algebras would count. There is also a finitist mathematics system, I believe. For such, one can construct an abstract, logic model world in which there are local results that do not extend to all possible frameworks or possible worlds; that is the border that seems relevant. The relevant general core is not like that, and the frame involving NZQRCR* would be my primary case in point. I think, in part, that is because its root is simple distinct identity thence N via say von Neumann’s construction, where onward classes of numbers [where from Z on up we are dealing with vectors] rooted in N, follow by logic and general demonstration, e.g. Z inserts that n’ + n = 0, n in N, Q uses p/q, both being in Z, R extends to limits of infinite chains of summed rationals [think, decimal representation and place value], C is two orthogonal real lines with rotations, R* is about infinitesimal and transfinite extensions to R that are now established in non standard analysis. KF
Why would non-Euclidean geometry be any less “core” than Euclidean geometry? How could there be a possible world where the mathematical logic of non-Euclidean geometry didn’t pertain, and what would that even mean? How could there be a “possible world” where one definition of parallel lines and the resulting geometry existed and the other two didn’t?
Explain.
Kairosfocus @
A simple world (universe) without life and just a few rocks flying around is possible. Are you saying that such a simple world also points to (is not possible without) the ‘necessary being’, who we both understand to be God?
VL, the parallel postulate and the angle sum of a triangle analogue are decisively different. They define flat, ellipsoidal [including spherical] and hyperboloidal spaces. So, this postulate is not consistent for all possible worlds. That marks a clear distinction, KF
PS, oh I forgot, the Euclidean abstract logic model geometric world is just as non core as the non Euclidean domains, it too does not always obtain in any possible world.
Origenes, I am saying, absent a necessary being reality root there would be just utter non being, no worlds of any sort at all, where world here enfolds a whole universe that might be or is, from a list of possible propositions to a computer simulation to a mathematical domain to our world 90 bn ly across or more. Utter non being has no causal powers and were such the case, that would always and only be the case, there would be no reality whatsoever, no time, no entities, no propositions, no minds, no matter, no spaces of any dimension, no locations, utter non being. As a world is, something always was of adequate causal capacity for our world to be and us in it. Responsible, rational, significantly free creatures. So, the issue is, of what character is that reality root, W0 as I tagged it. KF
VL, I also note that world schemes that do not have as core the good, holy, morally perfect God are not cases of ethical monotheism. They are other types of worldview, such as a dualism, a monism, a polytheism, a henotheism, a physicalism etc. KF
Kairosfocus: such variable cases are often set up as axiomatic systems where on changing certain axioms one gets a different frame that may be equally valid. The classic case in point is Euclidean geometry and its famous fifth postulate where across C19, there emerged various non Euclidean Geometries. I would think that standard and fuzzy sets are another case. The development of various non standard logic systems insofar as they are expressed as special algebras would count.
But, but, but, why are those systems dependent on Earth life? You said something and we are just asking you to justify your statement. AND haven’t humans already shown their ability to consider and deal with those cases? How can you show that those cases could not be understood by another .. . realm? Domain?
For such, one can construct an abstract, logic model world in which there are local results that do not extend to all possible frameworks or possible worlds; that is the border that seems relevant.
Okay, spell that out please. No supposition or guessing, show us how that would work.
The relevant general core is not like that, and the frame involving NZQRCR* would be my primary case in point. I think, in part, that is because its root is simple distinct identity thence N via say von Neumann’s construction, where onward classes of numbers [where from Z on up we are dealing with vectors] rooted in N, follow by logic and general demonstration, e.g. Z inserts that n’ + n = 0, n in N, Q uses p/q, both being in Z, R extends to limits of infinite chains of summed rationals [think, decimal representation and place value], C is two orthogonal real lines with rotations, R* is about infinitesimal and transfinite extensions to R that are now established in non standard analysis.k
Just spouting off a lot of mathy sounding verbiage doesn’t help you. You’ve made some specific claims or assertions, we’d just like you to support them. Please.
Give us some specific examples of areas of mathematics that might be ‘regional’ly dependent or admit you can’t. You make lots and lots of vague statements when what we’d like you to do is state some specific, clear mathematical regions or areas which you think might be different in a different domain. Just do that. Please.
the parallel postulate and the angle sum of a triangle analogue are decisively different. They define flat, ellipsoidal [including spherical] and hyperboloidal spaces. So, this postulate is not consistent for all possible worlds. That marks a clear distinction,
But, guess what, human mathematicians have learned to deal with those cases because we can accommodate different axioms.. So those cases can both be considered true in the human derived system. Why wouldn’t aliens or others come to the same conclusions?
So, AGAIN, what is considered true in the math realm that you think would not be considered true or essential in a different realm.
Kairosfocus @71
I agree with you that something fundamental must exist.
Good and solid argument. Again, we both hold that something fundamental must exist.
I think we both agree that the cause of this world is an excessively intelligent being.
A few notes:
1. The cause of this world and the W0 (reality root/something fundamental that must exist) are not necessarily the same thing. It is conceivable that the intelligent being that caused our world sprang from the W0. Given that, it is conceivable that the W0 is a nonconscious being that is not directly involved in creating our world.
2. As an aside, it is conceivable that the intelligent being that caused our world went through a learning process and acquired his incredible powers over time.
JVL, where did you ever get a suggestion that I connected the axiomatic systems in question to earth life? KF
Origenes, as a matter of design inference, there is no equating of W0 with the immediate designers of cell based life on earth. As an initial abstraction, personality is not attributed to the root world W0. That may be built up later on evidence but that is not where this starts. KF
re 70. So geometry is not core mathematics?
And you writes, “VL, the parallel postulate and the angle sum of a triangle analogue are decisively different.” Different than what? Different than each other? The sum of the angles in a triangle is a direct consequence of which parallel postulate you are adopting.
re 70. So geometry is not core mathematics?
And you writes, “VL, the parallel postulate and the angle sum of a triangle analogue are decisively different.” Different from what? Different from each other? The sum of the angles in a triangle is a direct consequence of which parallel postulate you are adopting.
Explain, please.
Kairosfocus @
Again, I agree. And I would add that I also don’t see a metaphysical necessity of equating the two.
Understood. I note again that evidence derived from this universe relates to the designer(s) of this universe who may be ontologically distinct from the W0.
VL, my operative word was analogue, e.g. the ellipsoidal case has the angles greater than 180 degrees for the analogue of a triangle and in other frames less than, it is the Euclidean case that has 180. So, yes, common school geometry is not part of the universal core as discussed though it is relevant to us. KF
VL, by for example citing Euclidean vs non Euclidean geometry I gave a well known clarifying case. That should be enough spelling out. KF
KF. Is trigonometry part of core mathematics? Exponents and logarithms? If the geometry of surfaces is not core, then would all math in coordinate systems, such as the graphs of functions not be core?
Can you explain what criteria is being used to answer the above questions.
VL, we are talking of the axiomatisation of geometry, that there are alternative axiomatisations that yield diverse results; as was stated and exemplified. Go through C and you will see all you need for geometry work, Trig functions and trig, likewise through power series. I note, Cartesian coords, are C in disguise in effect: j*x –> y. Extensions to 3-d space have similar vector approaches, try ijk, hinted at by the physicist’s j just now. The exponential function and its inverse are likewise. My point is not that the Euclidean world is not useful and relevant but that its framework per classical axiomatisation is not present in every possible world automatically. We know this directly through the creation of alternative worlds where the 5th postulate does not hold. The universal core I have pointed out, NZQRCR* etc, does hold in any possible world giving it universal power. We already know in a relativistic world that on the grand scale our spacetime domain is non euclidean, also making non euclidean geometry relevant. Though, navigation on the Earth’s surface gives cases also. Notice, two finitely separated lines of longitude intersect the equator locally at right angles but intersect at a non zero angle at the N pole, thus we see the triangle analogue in the surface of the Earth having the angle sum exceeding 180 degrees, something evident from the days of Eratosthenes. Likewise, projective geometry, including perspective is non Euclidean, parallel lines analogues converge at a vanishing point; this is the geometry of vision, manifest to us since our ancestors could reflect on vision. I gather pygmies from Central Africa taken out on the plains misunderstood remote animals as nearby bugs. I note that other examples have been set to one side for the moment but these also show the same pattern. The universal core I am speaking of is particular to the issue of being manifest in any possible world, each PW being a sufficient set of propositions feasible of instantiation, here as an abstract model framework. For related example, standard non naive set theory and fuzzy sets are both useful in diverse contexts but each is obviously a diverse axiomatisation, as are different algebraic logics. KF
PS, Notice how differing geometries with differing axiomatisations are practically relevant to us in diverse contexts.
PPS, you may wonder on universality. Lengths of lines are real values, as are angles at vertices, and of course trig function values, logs etc are reals, typically irrationals and it is suspected most of the time strictly transcendentals. But in curvilinear spaces world lines are curves so what does the angle of intersection mean, between curves, or the length of a curve? Clearly, we are dealing with close approximations to straight lines and planes etc (though surveyors beyond a certain scope do deal with curvature), and this points to what lurks, infinitesimal increments in the lines that are straight and do intersect at an angle. Curve lengths are in effect integrals of such increments, and more, that is, R* is relevant.
VL @, JVL @, KF@
KF argues that reality is such that any possible world is in accord with logic and math. Is anyone contesting his claim? It seems to me that there is only some disagreement about details.
Suppose we move on and ask: what explains the fact that any possible world is in accord with logic and math? KF suggests that the ‘root of reality’ must have put logic and math into reality and that this fact tells us something about the nature of the root of reality.
Is anyone contesting those claims? I am asking because that seems to be the bigger issue here.
@53
This is all fine, but let’s take stock of what this shows: if we’re doing possible world theory, then we’re using the tools of set theory to describe sets of possible worlds. So it’s just an presupposition of doing set theory that we can distinguish between elements in those sets: there are no sets if we can’t distinguish between elements (in this case, worlds).
My point was only that using the elementary mathematics of set theory to describe possible worlds doesn’t show that mathematics must be true of every possible world.
One of the basic truths of set theory is that sets can have different cardinality, and my point was that the set of mathematically possible worlds must have a smaller cardinality than the set of logically possible worlds.
This is because the only constraint on logically possible worlds is that they cannot violate the axioms of non-classical logics. (This is because the set of all classically logically possible world has a smaller cardinality than the set of all non-classically logically possible worlds, since classical logic has more restrictive axioms than non-classical logics.)
But the constraints on mathematically possible worlds are more restrictive than the constraints on logically possible worlds, because in addition to logical axioms, there are additional axioms — the axioms of geometry and the axioms of number theory.
It’s an intuitive result of possible world theory that as one adds axioms, the cardinality of the set of possible worlds decreases, since there will always be possible worlds in which the axioms do not hold.
For this reason, I believe it is mistaken to say
precisely because one can conceive of logically possible worlds in which the axioms of geometry and number theory cannot be used.
A sheer homogeneous plenum is a logically possible world in which it is impossible to do geometry, since one could not differentiate between points, lines, planes. A world of zero dimensionality would be a world in which only points are mathematically possible. A world that had no spatio-temporal structure at all would be a world in which no mathematics could be done.
Yet all these worlds are thinkable without contradiction, hence they are classically logically possible.
Origenes,
once you have a distinct possible [much less actual!] world, the law of distinct identity is already present. It carries with it its close corollaries, excluded middle and non contradiction. These are already clearly fabric to any possible world and so are necessary entities constitutive of any given world. Branch on which we all sit.
Next, there is a fourth principle that in some forms is quite controversial, sufficient reason. I short circuit the vexed debates . . . this one is so powerful it triggers hot objections . . . by using a weak, inquiry form: for any A that is, may be or is impossible of being we may freely ask why, and hope to find a reasonable answer. This cannot be successfully objected to, it is a declaration of freedom of inquiry.
It also leads us to see that some things are impossible of being [IoB] in any possible world [PW], similar to a Euclidean plane square circle. That is because, core proposed characteristics are irreconcilably contradictory. Where, to get all strict, picky and fussy, consider that plane to be a disguised form of the complex plane C.
Next, some things are possible and some are actual. Of these, some are in at least one PW but not all, these are contingent beings, CB. Others, are in every possible world, necessary beings, NB. If you doubt, try to imagine a particular world W where twoness does not exist, or begins, or ceases. Of course just from W is distinct from a near neighbour W’, so W = {W’|A}, A some distinguishing attribute, 2 is already present in the existence or possible existence of W. NB’s are framework for any PW, so they are always there. NB’s are of course aspects of the root world already discussed W0. They always existed, cannot cease, are thus . . . eternal.
The atheists are getting hot under the collar and sending out VT quake swarms, magma on the move heading for the surface. Never mind, we are just looking at what is now logic of being. Nope, not religion [the favourite dismissive rhetorical eruption], strictly, the branch of metaphysics termed ontology.
We also see, that contingent beings, like fires, are caused. This can be elaborated but simply consider a fire and its requisites, as Copi did in his famous introductory text. Obviously, what begins to exist and/or depends on something else to continue and/or can cease from existing and/or is composite (made from prior parts) is contingent and caused. Necessary beings are not caused but from W0, may be causes. Or, like 2, may be logical constraints on possible being. No, not everything has or needs a cause.
We are far enough along that we can modify my fav Austrian Prof, a certain HN (loved the dashikis!), and define math:
In that context, necessarily, any PW has logic and a certain core of math embedded in it as NB fabric to its existence, including NZQRCR* etc, the etc being royal, i.e. expandable into a realm. That’s my answer to Wigner’s wonder on the seemingly magical power of math. There is a universal core of math that is utterly pervasive, an aspect of requisites of being.
However, not all of math is like that. We set up abstract logic model worlds, LMW’s, at top level, axiomatic systems, at other levels mere models or even programmed abstract machines such as Turing machines.
Euclidean geometry is an axiomatic system and it was discovered ~ 200 years ago that its 5th postulate is limited in scope, i.e. there are non Euclidean geometries. We can go to C to get an abstract result as needed in any world, but we can also define curvilinear systems etc and in our own world navigation, perspective etc already go beyond Euclid.
As to creating that NB structure, no, it is already embedded in W0, we discover that core we do not invent it, and it is fabric to W0. Classically, on theism, these are eternal contemplations of God. On other proposed schemes they are part of the fabric of what is and always was. I argue separately that schemes that try to dismiss God are causally inadequate for us as responsible, rational, significantly free creatures. Also, they cannot find a way to have God impossible of being. Attempts to sever God from goodness and moral perfection are similarly wanting in cogency.
Those asides are there as there seems to be endless debate on such and need for clarity.
The quincunx, then is as I noted in 11:
KF
PM1, actually, as just outlined, we are dealing with ontology and thus foundations of math. This is prior to set theory. When we discuss, a world is already implied for us to exist and be discussing, branch on which we sit. PW discussion is about this and other ways things might be, described as sets of assertions, propositions. Again, antecedent to proper revised set theory, the naive forms ran into paradoxes. So, we start from getting to N then extending NZQRCR* etc. The rest follows. KF
@85
I’m not contesting the claim about logic, only about mathematics (even “core mathematics”).
I have no complaints about the idea that logic constrains the set of all possible worlds. The question is, what follows from this?
One would need to consider whether possible worlds really exist in some sense or if all talk about possible worlds is just a way of articulating modal discourse about how the actual world could be. (This is sometimes construed as a debate between modal realism and modal actualism.)
I guess I’m just puzzled as to how this debate relates to whether God exists. Even if modal realism is true (which seems bonkers to me, but whatever), it wouldn’t show that God exists, and even if modal actualism is true (which is my personal inclination), it wouldn’t show that God doesn’t exist.
Put otherwise, even if modal actualism were true, and possible worlds is just a convenient device for representing our modal commitments about how the actual world could be, one might still feel the urge to ask such questions as:
(1) Why is it the case that this universe has the requisite spatio-temporal structure for beings such as ourselves to conceive of both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries?
(2) Why is it the case that this universe has the requisite spatio-temporal structure for beings such as ourselves to empirically determine that the actual geometry of the universe is roughly non-Euclidean (in the presence of mass)?
(3) Why it is the case that this universe has the requisite spatio-temporal structure for beings such as ourselves to construct mathematical tools such as set theory and category theory?
(4) Why it is the case that this universe has the requisite spatio-temporal structure for beings such as ourselves to sense, imagine, and think of empirically detectable objects as countable, such that arithmetic operations can be applied to empirically detectable objects?
It would nevertheless also be a question as to whether “because it was willed as such by a transcendent personal God” is an intellectually satisfying answer to any or all of those questions.
@88
First of all, possible worlds is not prior to set theory: what we are discussing in possible world semantics is sets of worlds. Possible world semantics just is the use of set theory to make explicit the ontological commitments of modal discourse. (It’s been a while since I’ve read David Lewis, but I’m pretty sure this is how he develops his version of extensional possible world semantics.)
Secondly, there’s still a difference between what is true about sets of worlds and what is true of any particular world.
My point is that the cardinality of mathematically possible worlds must be smaller than the cardinality of logically possible worlds. It cannot be the case that elementary mathematics is true of all logically possible worlds, precisely because we can conceive of logically possible worlds in which the axioms of elementary mathematics cannot hold.
PM clearly lays out some interesting issues, and then asks, “It would nevertheless also be a question as to whether “because it was willed as such by a transcendent personal God” is an intellectually satisfying answer to any or all of those questions.”
I’d say no. My point (way back when Ford asked about the “ethical” in “ethical theism”) is that all. these interesting and messy questions about the relationship between logic, math, and the root of reality do not imply or logically lead to a belief that the root of reality has a personal concern about human beings, or any other attributes of being “personal” in respect to the world.
PM1, again, to discuss sets and collections, there first has to be a we, in a world. This is branch on which we sit territory; a we BTW who need to be responsibly, rationally, significantly free. We then proceed to describe our world and find a set of propositions, then realise that other worlds are possible, other actual or conceivable states of affairs for this or other worlds. This is before we debate semantics or realise that such descriptions are or translate to sufficient systems of propositions to specify how a world is or might be. In discussing a distinct possible world W we find that distinct identity etc are present. These are prior to axiomatisation of set theory, e.g. ZFC, and to the relevant sets NZQRCR* etc. That elucidation starts from being. As was already sufficiently shown. KF
PS: I address this here:
Nope, so soon as a distinct PW, W is identified, dichotomy is present, as was already discussed. So, we see 2, 1, 0. By von Neumann, thence N, necessarily. What you are trying to suggest is worlds in which 2ness does not exist as a property, or one ness [a world . . . ] or 0 [empty of content] etc. On the contrary, as was shown long since, once N, ZQRCR*. So the difference of cardinality you suggest is an error.
VL, no one has asserted that worldviews are deductive conclusions. What has been on the table is grand explanatory inferences and comparative difficulties. We need adequate causal ground for a world with morally governed creatures, us. That requires bridging is-ought, where post Hume that can only credibly be done at necessary being reality root level. That adequacy requirement points to a bill of requisites: inherent goodness and utter wisdom (we are not dealing with a demiurge). The “candidate to beat” is the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. Your alternative is _________ and it is able to ground and bridge IS-OUGHT as _________, also it is better on comparative difficulties due to ________ . KF
PS, as God is clearly a serious candidate NB, God as characterised is either impossible of being [incoherent core characteristics] or is actual.
@92
OK, if I’m understanding you correctly, then nothing in the passage just quoted above requires anything in possible world semantics or set theory.
If that’s what you’re saying, I’m completely fine with that. I’d happily take what’s quoted above as a starting point for any philosophical reflection.
Given my background and training, I’d call that “transcendental reflection”, which I’d describe as a systematic inquiry into the cognitive capacities and incapacities, the actualization of which is disclosed in the kinds of experiences we manifestly take ourselves to have (including our experience of ourselves as norm-governed beings).
Disclosure of the experiences in which these capacities and incapacities are reliably manifested, and description of those capacities and incapacities based on second-order reflection on those experiences, is not wholly separable from the ontological question of what the world must be like such that
(1) beings such as ourselves can be amongst its beings
and
(2) it is possible for beings with our cognitive capacities and incapacities can (as it were) “mesh” with empirically detectable regularities and irregularities grounded in the world’s causal and modal structures.
I’m just baffled at the idea that it is possible to talk about possible worlds prior to set theory, since possible world semantics relies on set theory. This was how Kripke and Lewis more or less defined the metaphysics of possible worlds: the use of set theory to make explicit the ontological commitments of modal discourse. The idea of talking about possible worlds without relying on set theory doesn’t make sense to me.
But, if I’m understanding the first part correctly, then you don’t really need any logic or mathematics at all — just transcendental reflection (as I call it) is sufficient to clarify the starting-point of philosophizing.
KF writes, “Your alternative is _________ and it is able to ground and bridge IS-OUGHT as _________,
As I said above, “There is no bridge across the is-ought gap. “Is” is about reality. “Ought” is about judgments people make about how to behave. There is always a gap that is filled in by individual choice.”
Your belief that there must be such a bridge at the root of reality is a faith-based belief, but as I have repeatedly said, the only arguments for such that you seem to offer is one of consequences: that if such does not exist and is not believed in, then nihilism follows. That is not an valid argument for your assertion.
@93
I completely agree with all of that.
and that is where I get off the bus.
You’re claiming that we ought to response to Hume by positing ought-ness at the level of fundamental reality. As I’ve argued before, I don’t think that makes sense.
All Hume is saying is that there’s no deductively valid argument that has only descriptive statements in the premises and a prescriptive statement in the conclusion. (To put the same point in terms of symbolic logic, one cannot introduce a deontic logic operator in the conclusion if there are no deontic operators in the premises.)
Hume’s argument does not say that we can’t have a causal explanation for the evolution of norm-governed behavior amongst large-brained social animals. In other words, one can “bridge” the “gap” between “is” and “ought” by way of science — his point is only that one cannot do so by way of logic alone.
KF writes, “We need adequate causal ground for a world with morally governed creatures, us.”
I object to the “governed” part of KF’s need, as to him it inserts his conclusion into the need: that there needs to be a basis for morality at the root level to “govern” us. Humans are moral creatures (more broadly, they are normative creatures), but the grounding of that moral nature is in the complexities of our biological, cultural, social, psychological, cognitive nature, which includes our rational abilities. But ultimately we make moral choices: we take lots of things into consideration, and we are subject to lots of forces and influences, but ultimately we govern ourself. This is a very long way from any “need’ for the root of reality to have anything to do this.
PM1,
possible worlds discussions were conceived before Kripke et al [think Leibniz, or even Anselm or Aristotle et al, but more to the point those who conceived world systems/views or just wrote novels, fantasies, fairy stories and other fictional genres — before we get to things like the Euclidean axiomatisation and its cousins, or scientific theories]. Yes, my view is that such schemes are ancient, we are dealing with formalisations not proper origins. Then, of course, these latterday worthies were inhabitants of a going concern, credibly contingent cosmos, which has come down to our own day.
In case you think my approach a strange and dubiously idiosyncratic one, ponder:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/
Which, begins:
Now of course SEP goes on:
Where, a PW can be taken as a way this or another world is, may be etc. This opens up using PWs to include the sorts of entities already pointed to. Thence, a candidate c is impossible of being IFF there is no W in which it would be actual were W actualised. Possible beings exist in at least one W, and necessary ones in every W. Contingent ones are in at least one PW but not all.
Going back to sets, because of the paradoxes of naive set theory, modern set theories sought to construct a hierarchy of sets not vulnerable to such. Thus we come to things like the von Neumann construction of N and the like, from {} –> 0. From which, we go, N, so ZQRCR* etc. Modern ZFC set theory is not as colourful as it used to be in the naive days, but it is more reliable. In this context, I think you will see why I suggest ZFC is a particular axiomatisation that sets up a logic-model world, not the root of such world-describing, modelling, simulating and building.
The rest follows directly.
KF
VL:
Ahem, do you not see that you just appealed to my known duty to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, with hints of to sound conscience, thus neighbour and justice? My point is and has been that Cicero and his antecedents saw something profound, and that it is of branch on which we sit character, objectors are hope;essly caught in self referentiality.
PM1:
Scientism, anyone?
The problem is, accidental collocations of atoms without due end have no obligations, no responsible rational freedom, so no ought. You have proposed no is adequate to ground ought. At most you are at the level of the delusion that gets us to cooperate better. Wide open for nihilistic dismissal.
KF
And of course, you too are sitting on the same branch with VL, the undersigned and the rest of us.
I will continue to respond a bit for the sake, perhaps, of some new participants who haven’t been around the block with KF on this subject before.
KF makes his usual dismissive and condescending response when he writes, “Ahem, do you not see that you just appealed to my known duty to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, with hints of to sound conscience, thus neighbour and justice?”
No, KF, I don’t “see” that: I understand what you are saying and disagree with you about it. One can believe that human beings have the ability to reason and seek truth without believing that they have a “duty” to reason that flows from the root of reality, just as one can believe humans have a moral nature without believing they are “governed” by a morality that flows from the root of reality.
It’s a cheap out to dismiss arguments against your philosophy by dismissing the possibility that reason flows from other sources than the root of reality. That makes it impossible to have your philosophy challenged because you automatically declare victory and refuse to address those challenges.
My claim is that the only arguments that you provide for there being moral duties flowing from the root of reality are arguments from consequences: your mistaken belief that only by your position can one escape nihilism.
Address the issues: don’t shoo me away by condescendingly saying, “Hey, you’re using reason, so you must agree with me about “duties” and the root of reality.
See 44 and 95 and 97 for more.
VL@100, very well said.
And as far as I can see the same applies to his is-ought gap argument. He insists that the only way to ground ought is if the “is” is derived from his mysterious root of reality. He further insists that the only alternative is might and manipulation make right. Completely ignoring things like cooperation, logic, desire, goals, etc, none of which need be linked to his root of reality.
VL
“Address the issues: don’t shoo me away by condescendingly saying,…”
Why not? Does KF have a duty to not be condescending? Does he have any duty to address the issues? I’m confused as to why you are objecting as if he should not be doing what you personally don’t want him to do. Does he have some kind of duty to you? That’s the only way I can make sense of your objection.
Vivid
Vividbleau: Does he have any duty to address the issues?
Don’t you think the point is that Kairosfocus asks us to use logic and reason but when we do he tells us we’re doing it wrong? That he will always object to any point made if it disagrees with his pre-held beliefs and biases? That he’s not really carrying on a dialogue at all? He’s just pushing his agenda which he clearly states is an attempt to ‘correct’ our invalid views.
JVL@
Here you are simply whining about the fact that Kairosfocus does not agree with you. **Newsflash**: that won’t happen any time soon.
VL:
I respond in steps of thought:
>>As I said above, “There is no bridge across the is-ought gap. “Is” is about reality. “Ought” is about judgments people make about how to behave. There is always a gap that is filled in by individual choice.”>>
1: Naked denial of a case on the table that does bridge the gap and at root level of reality.
2: Our sense of oughtness is a fact, indeed, your argument turns on the binding nature of first duties to truth, right reason etc that you think I am in breach of.
3: Arthur Holmes is on point:
>>Your belief that there must be such a bridge at the root of reality is a faith-based belief,>>
4: Them’s fighting words, given the widespread subtext of contempt towards “faith” and “religion,” which by writing in this way, you invite in the door.
5: In fact, I showed a serious candidate, well known in the history of ideas and discussed on worldviews level abductive inference to the best explanation, informed by logic of necessary being.
6: Further, I highlighted something we can warrant to self evident certainty, we all sit on the branch together where even the objector must appeal to known first duties of reason, i.e. we can know and should acknowledge that our responsible rational freedom is morally governed. Branch on which we all sit inevitability of reason, so, pervasive, self evident first principles and duties that govern reason, indeed also our first built in law the root of just and prudent government and governance more broadly. To wit, following Cicero:
7: But, that is obviously, a bitter pill to swallow and so objectors repeatedly, predictably demonstrate further cases of how it governs argument and reason.
>> but as I have repeatedly said, the only arguments for such that you seem to offer is one of consequences:>>
8: Why do you keep acting as if the above line of worldviews level inference to best explanation i/l/o self evident first duties and law does not exist? You may disagree, with due reason . . . oops! . . . but there it is, has been for some time now.
9: That denial is so striking it calls for explanation and invites cognitive dissonance by projection to the other analysis. This is the key and main argument, ponder closely why you have repeatedly acted as though it were not there, the better to pounce on what you imagine is a weak argument.
>> that if such does not exist and is not believed in, then nihilism follows.>>
10: Actually, a strawman. My actual argument on this point is first, objectors sit on the same branch with the rest of us and so we find a cluster of self evident truths on first duties, first principles and first law of responsible rational freedom.
11: This is epistemological, an argument drawing out self evidence, building on say this from Epictetus:
12: The attempt to deny and dismiss such self evident truth is hopelessly self referentially incoherent as one is trying to saw off the branch on which one is sitting on. Further, denial of such first logical, moral and epistemological principles undermines rationality, prudence and knowledge, which does by its nature invite nihilism, denial and dismissal of knowledge, principle, reason etc.
13: Which is a manifest fact on recent centuries of history, too, with terrible consequences.
14: In this context, logic of being issues obtain. They point to the root of reality and highlight the need for an adequate cause for such an objective state of knowledge and duty.
15: There is a serious candidate, the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. God as candidate would be one unified entity so uniting inextricably goodness and being, in the very root of all worlds. That bridges is and ought.
16: Further, utter wisdom and power to create worlds gives ability to effect domains in which responsible, rational creatures with freedom can know and live by sound principles and duties of self evident character.
17: Maximal greatness implies that such a candidate — notice, CANDIDATE, not assumption or naked assertion — would have good attributes to maximal compossible degree.
18: Serious candidate NECESSARY being, implies either impossible of being [as a Euclidean plane square circle is, incoherent core characteristics], or actual as possible and framework to worlds.
19: To dismiss, perhaps not serious, but the history of ideas of our civilisation is undeniable, not a promising approach. Likewise, the argument from evil self defeats and is dead post Plantinga. So, there is no good reason to hold impossible of being, either.
KF
VL, pointing out a frequently side stepped fact, which you just put on the table again by sitting on the branch you are trying to saw off, is not “condescending,” which by now is just a way to poison the well. I have already answered substantially and FP et al can answer for themselves. KF
KJ writes, “1: Naked denial of a case on the table that does bridge the gap and at root level of reality.”
Explain. Be more specific. What case are you talking about?
KF writes, “2: Our sense of oughtness is a fact, indeed.
Yes, it is a fact. That doesn’t mean it comes from the root of reality.
Explain how you know our sense of oughtness from the root of reality.
This is the crux of the matter. I don’t think the root of reality cares at all how humans behave. A sense of oughtness is a contingent fact about human beings, as are many other qualities, but that doesn’t mean they come from the root of reality.
That’s the key issue.
KK, it is condescending to start a sentence with, “Ahem, do you not see …” Just say what you want to say, but don’t imply some level of blindness on the part of the person you are addressing.
Origenes: Here you are simply whining about the fact that Kairosfocus does not agree with you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Kairosfocus@11
I think this post is the quintessence of the most comprehensive answer to the OP question, “Is The Galton Board Evidence For Intelligent Design Of The Universe?”, which is a positive and certain Yes. The Galton Board and its statistics are merely one of countless examples of the intricate intelligent mathematical organization of the Universe and our reality. I had a similar thought , but couldn’t immediately come up with a good formulation.
JVL
“Don’t you think the point is that Kairosfocus asks us to use logic and reason but when we do he tells us we’re doing it wrong?”
A couple of thoughts.Tell me where I am missing the boat. I think both you and VL get frustrated with KF for a number of reasons.
1) No one likes to be lectured too and as much as I love the guy he can come off as a lecturer not a hearer. I don’t think that is true but I can see why one could feel that way
2) Although I don’t know what you or VL ‘s metaphysical positional starting points are ( I wish I did) they definitely are not KF’s starting point. So until that disagreement gets resolved it is understandable by both you and VL that he is not listening to what you have to say. You are talking past each other..
3) Although I don’t know either of you personally from your writings I think the both of you are very much concerned about morality, in short you are moral people. You both are very much concerned about truth and it can be irksome if you get the sense from KF that you are not concerned about them. Or because you don’t agree with his metaphysics you are neither moral or concerned about truth. I think you are misreading him. I think he is talking about “grounding” issues not the former.
Anyway may I have change for my two cents?
Vivid
VB (& attn others above),
what could be clearer than that the first duties and principles of reason are a branch on which we all sit, so that when we see attempts to object to their self evident character [it seems, therefore placing them in a relativist or subjectivist context etc . . . ], we consistently see appeals to the same duties and principles?
As in, sawing off the branch on which we all sit.
The point here, is there is an epistemic warrant that it is self evidently the case that our reasoning is morally governed: inescapable, so pervasive binding first principles and duties.
And if one does mean, one is NOT appealing to duties to truth, right reason or warrant, on what basis do they expect us to respond? Whatever arguments move people emotively? Habits? Social conventions that happen to say that valid arguments are important and so is cooperation? Why?
No, I think the problem I see is that there is abundant evidence of the branch on which we sit first principles and duties, but that evidence is pointing in directions that the dominant worldviews and cultural agendas do not want to go. Towards the roots of reality and the is ought gap thence the bridging challenge that would unify our reasoning.
Further, from the beginning I pointed to the inescapability of such moral government of reason. Time after time, objecting arguments imply the very appeals and so provide evidence of their branch on which we sit nature. Epictetus’ approach on first principles of logic applies:
How do you think the man who challenged him felt?
I must point out, then, that my arguments TURN ON highlighting the fact of our sense of duty to truth, right reason, right conduct etc. They do not imply that we lack such concerns, but go on to how do we ground them, post Hume and his guillotine.
How, then could I imply or invite that objectors are not concerned regarding duty to truth or to do the right etc? When, I am arguing by pointing to how their objections appeal to these very principles, just as predicted? No, again, the issue is grounding at source of reality level, given that there is an is-ought gap, that there are worldviews that assert there is no grounding for morality, or even for objective knowledge or responsible rational freedom. Crick, Provine and many more show that, Dawkins too.
Provine, for reference:
That, I point out that such expresses or invites nihilism is simple fair comment. Wikipedia’s confession:
I think I am seeing attempts to dismiss that self evidence rooted in repeatedly shown branch on which we sit pervasive first principle status, multiplied by distractive polarising projections: condescending etc. (What could be more “condescending” than asserting away a whole class of arguments made for a long time, as though they don’t exist then setting up and knocking over a strawman as I had to point out earlier today?)
Next, what could be clearer that I am focussing on ontological roots, than speaking to the roots of reality?
Further, I have put on the table a candidate for that root, noting that that candidate would both exist and would exist as inherently good and utterly wise. Thus, the is-ought gap, on this worldview option would be bridged from the root, securing a clean framework in which everything stemming from the root can freely access that bridge.
Going on, that candidate is a serious candidate necessary being. That entails, either impossible of being as described, or actual. One could call an entity God and suggest no relevance to goodness etc, but that would be a massively question begging redefinition. One that would rightly be rejected.
So, if one is serious about truth, right, good, virtue, duty, etc, why, why fundamentally.
KF
I really appreciate your post, Vivid, trying to mediate some understanding between two different points of view and different people. Although addressed to JVL, I think I’m referenced enough that I can respond for myself.
First, yes, I am quite concerned with truth and morality, and think I have some good, valid views on those subjects. You write, “ It can be irksome if you get the sense from KF that you are not concerned about them. Or because you don’t agree with his metaphysics you are neither moral or concerned about truth. I think you are misreading him. I think he is talking about “grounding” issues not the former.”
I think it is clear that KF does think that because I don’t agree with his metaphysics I have no grounding to talk about morals or truth, and that is irksome. I don’t think I’m misreading him on that. And I’m not sure what you mean by grounding issues, but I think the key difference is that he thinks his metaphysics concerning these topics are self-evidently true, and thus dismisses those of us who disagree.
I think it’s obvious that we are not going to resolve our differences by coming to fundamental agreement, and for that reason perhaps (or maybe more than perhaps) I should quit getting in this recurring discussion.
And yes, he does come across as “lecturing” those of us who are wrong, and that is also irksome. I will admit that I may be driven more by being irked by a number of things about KF than by more positive feelings about the value of the discussions. There is no sense in my continuing to respond to things he says again and again when I know my response will have no effect. I will try to learn my lesson.
KF
Yes I understand you must get frustrated as well. You gotta know by now that I agree with your views wholeheartedly. I am just trying to bridge the gap. I want to thank you for being the warrior you are.
Vivid
VL
“I really appreciate your post, Vivid,”
You and I are never going to agree on many things but over the years I have grown to appreciate you. You are an extremely intelligent individual and a whiz at math, an area I suck at. God bless
PS: KF has some legitimate beefs as well.
Vivid
Kairosfocus @
KF, is the following a correct breakdown of your argument in premises and conclusion?
1.) There are moral & logical rules for all of us.
2.) We humans are all subjective and very different from each other.
From (2.)
3.) We, on our own, would never arrive at shared moral & logical rules.
Therefore, from (1.) and (3.)
4.) Shared moral & logical rules must come from an external source.
Origenes, that is a significant argument, but it is significantly different. I will lay out my actual argument regarding first duties, as a F/N. I think it is highly unfair to project to me that I am arguing religion, or am saying others are unconcerned about truth, duty, good, right etc [as I noted overnight, my point pivots on the branch on which we sit character of first duties, even when we try to object]. My point is that Cicero put his finger on something when he summarised the classical deposit, that there are certain built-in first duties of lawful character. I noticed, that the attempt to object to them or to their binding nature itself appeals to them, revealing branch on which we sit, pervasive first principle, self evident character. Our responsible, rational freedom is morally governed through these first duties. Which, are knowable and coeval with our nature. That undermines radical relativism, subjectivism, emotivism etc and it is plain from many such as Provine, Crick and Rosenberg etc, that evolutionary materialistic scientism does open the door to nihilism thus lawlessness. That is underscored by the history of C20. Going beyond, as we operate on both sides of is-ought, it is reasonable to seek a bridge. That points to root reality and there is a serious candidate necessary being root of reality that does bridge the gap, the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. That is a significant feature of ethical theism, which it is only fair to have on the table. It is also fair comment to note that such a serious candidate NB either is impossible of being or is actual, which points a way back to the proper focus for the thread. KF
F/N: The core argument I made these many moons ago now, starting with the better known of the two key texts from Cicero:
Notice, he is here grounding the natural law perspective. That brings John Finnis’ remark on legal positivism as a defective version of natural law thought to the fore:
This brings out that the Ciceronian first duties of reason are also first law, law being understood, per Intro to De Legibus:
Notice, “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.”
So, the is-ought gap must be addressed, which raises ontological, root reality questions.
F.N2: My own argument:
This does not require or imply that those who think the gap cannot be bridged are amoral or care nothing about truth and right. It points out that trying to deny the branch on which we sit pervasive nature of such first principles is as futile as trying to prove them — for one and the same reason. As, so soon as we argue and appeal, we are already calling on these principles and duties. They are self evident and knowable. Pointing out that this happens in case after case of objections is merely highlighting facts open to inspection.
What has happened is that we have turned away from and forgotten this frame of thought. For cause, that is an error.
KF
PM1,
do you agree, per 98, that possible worlds can be conceived antecedent to set theory, now generally axiomatised per ZFC in answer to the Russell paradoxes? Where, the idea of sets as collections opened up issues on ill defined, contradictory claims illustrated by the village barber paradox.
I presume so, and again highlight 11:
KF
PS, do you further agre that we can use PW concepts to analyse being on what is impossible vs possible, then what is contingent vs necessary? Thus, to see that the contingent are caused [even, were they sustained forever in a given world] and the necessary are part of the fabric for any possible world? Can we agree that as Euclidean Geometry’s 5th postulate can be varied to form other geometries, that axiomatisation is not as central as what we may explore on seeing that once we have a definably distinct W, dichotomy and 0,1,2 are already present opening up von Neumann’s construction thence NZQRCR* etc as universal core math?
KF @
How exactly is the argument made that the moral law must come from a realm external to us? I have read your text and I cannot find it.
For instance, I cannot find it in Cicero. Let’s read:
The law is in agreement with our nature, so, perhaps it can be explained by our nature.
Arguably, our nature is also unchanging and everlasting, so it can be true that the law can be explained by our nature.
Well, arguably our nature works that way.
Ok, it works that way in good men only.
We must act in accord with who we are, our nature. Ok.
People are essentially the same everywhere. Ok.
Where does this come from? Where was the argument made that moral laws cannot be explained by human nature?
So, I am asking you to elaborate on that particular part of the argument.
PPS, I find this from Wikipedia gives a point to start from:
I think, a PW is a sufficiently complete description or scenario or model of how this world or another is or was or might have been or might be, is sufficient to be fruitful. Particularly, when joined to NBs. For we can construct a fairly minimal logic model world and then identify in it NB entities which then apply transworld. For other things we may abstract key aspects of our world and construct an empirically reliable enough model. Simulations then give us exploratory power.
This extends to the fine tuning debate in cosmology, as in effect we take mathematical physical models and twiddle the knobs. Boom, our world is at a deeply isolated operating point in the configuration space.
Origenes, my argument has been first that there are pervasive, branch on which we sit, first principles and duties which are therefore self evident and generally knowable, objective. That is an epistemological case, not an ontological one. It then means our reason is governed by ought, duty, objective principles of moral character. Principles that are NOT alien, arbitrary, imposed and external to us but instead are built into and pervade our nature, pointing to the need for a causally adequate source of such nature: responsible, rational freedom. Without which, we have no credibility to argue, warrant or know — a major challenge to worldviews that cannot ground that nature. Where too, we are contingent so not self explanatory. That points onward to the is ought gap and to how it can be bridged. That is addressed not as a deductive proof but as a comparative difficulties worldviews case that turns on the popular view the gap is unbridgeable. It turns out, this is because we have set aside or forgotten a major worldview frame that does bridge it, through the reality root candidate, the inherently good, utterly wise [so, just, loving and gracious] creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. As my Haitian brothers and sisters invariably refer, Le Bon Dieu. A serious candidate NB. Thus, our alternatives are to acknowledge this option or to refuse it, the latter fails as it is there, freely stated. Then, we may address comparative difficulties, is this feasible . . . is such a conception of God and summary of a PW coherent? Yes, as Plantinga showed. So, the real challenge is that those who reject this need to show the God of such generic ethical theism is impossible of being as a Euclidean Square circle is. They have not and post Plantinga likely cannot. KF
F.N: More from Wikipedia, as outlining onward issues:
Of course, propositions assert what is claimed true or false, i.e. the state of affairs. So, we can ponder states of affairs, contingency and necessity of being.
KF
Kairosfocus@
There are first principles and moral rules. Let’s agree on that and go from there.
In my view, the person is his own master. So, I would say that a person can choose to apply the golden rule—treat others how you want to be treated. A lot of moral rules flow from the application: do not kill, do not abuse, do not impose restrictions on freedom of speech, do not make vaccination mandatory and so on.
You say principles/moral laws are “built into” our nature. An alternative view is that principles/moral laws stem from human nature & the application of the golden rule. What precisely is the killer argument against the latter view? Or is there no specific argument?
That is a very general argument. We are contingent, so we are created, so, everything about us comes from an outside source. Why single out moral laws when you argue that everything comes from an external source?
Origenes, it’s not opinions to agree/disagree, we are dealing with self evident truths that are knowable objectively. Unfortunately, this is part of what our civilisation has largely lost, the ability to recognise that just as for any other reasonably definable field, there is — actually, undeniably — objective moral knowledge. We are free, not blindly programmed, so each of us is a first cause, a self moved agent. That is WHY we are morally governed rather than simply dynamic-stochastic mindless machines. Next, given ever so many agendas, ideas and attitudes out there we need to emphasise that the first duties are reasonable, intelligible, manifestly proper to our nature and its evident ends. We have minds directed to soundness and truth, so we have duties towards those ends; we have neighbours as we are, we must respect them too, including fairness and justice. The duties in question are built into our nature so they are natural to us, though as we are contingent creatures within a world their root does not come from us but from the root of reality. However, they are not arbitrary or oppressive impositions, again unlike the perceptions that too many have been led to. KF
Kairosfocus writes:
You full well know that there are many who have a different opinion as to many of your “self-evident truths”.
Kairosfocus writes:
Then why do we have to reinforce to our children the need to tell the truth? Something we have to do repeatedly, over several years, and impose punishments for not telling the truth. The propensity for most adults to tell the truth certainly acts like any number of our common learned/indoctrinated behaviours.
Self-imposed duties, not duties originating from your “root of reality”. And as we impose these “duties” on ourselves, we expect others to behave in a similar fashion.
Yes, we are a gregarious/communal species. As such, there are certain behaviours that enhance our experience in society and others that hinder it. We are taught these behaviours from the day we are born. The fact that some of these “expected” behaviours change over time and from culture to culture is strong evidence that they are not derived from your “root of reality” but rather from the vagaries and variations of societies.
You are entitled to your opinion, in spite of the mountains of evidence counter to it.
Evidence suggests otherwise.
Ford
“Then why do we have to reinforce to our children the need to tell the truth?”
The very fact that you do reinforce to your children the need to tell the truth is evidence that you think they have a duty to tell the truth. Sheesh
Vivid
VB writes:
Just because I believe that it is ultimately in their best interest to tell the truth does not mean, as KF claims, that they have a duty to do so that is derived from him “root of reality”.
Ford
“Just because I believe that it is ultimately in their best interest to tell the truth”
Unless you believe they will ultimately be judged by an ultimate judge the above is false.
Vivid
FP, it is always possible to reject a self evident truth; the problem is not the truth or its self evident state but that for another reason one rejects it. In this case you are implicitly appealing to duties to truth, right reason and warrant; yet again underscoring the point that we see here branch on which we all sit pervasive first principles and duties. Inescapable, the attempt to object keeps on exemplifying inadvertent appeals to said duties, this just shows the branch on which we sit first principle character. Of course, precisely because lying can parasite off truth and confer a short term advantage [getting away with the indefensible], one is tempted to violate the principles. As Kant long ago pointed out, that is like passing counterfeit money, once enough is in circulation it will be ruinous, revealing the true character of deceit — categorical imperative. But more basically, moral government regulates freedom, these principles are oughts not musts. We may freely breach them, just as we breach, do not shed innocent blood; does that mean there is no natural duty to respect the life of others? No, just that we can do evil, lying, slandering, defrauding, character assassination, physical assassination. . Politicians, ad men and propagandists regularly exploit simple and subtle fallacies to gain power. Ask the ghost of Dr Goebbels where that ends up. This is not appeal to consequences, it is pointing to the ruinous nature of evil. And again, notice the actual issue not the strawman you are knocking over: your objection is implicitly appealing to the duties you try to object to. And, the natural end of a mind is to apprehend truth through right reason. Evil perverts what is a good capability out of alignment with its due end and is chaotic as a result. And more. KF
PS, as for the notion that on evidence — again appealing to first duties — we make up duties, such relativism, subjectivism and emotivism is self defeating. We cannot by majority vote or whatever make murder right or fraud or racism, or any number of things. It also opens the door to nihilistic will to power as we have seen. Again, notice what you refuse to see, you are appealing to the principles you try to object to.
PPS, we notice your dismissiveness on the root of ought, but can also notice that you have evaded addressing the substance on the point. Meanwhile, yet again you appeal to the duties you object to. Let me pause and give an outline on where relativism and/or subjectivism and/or emotivism . . . they are tangled together . . . goes wrong:
KF @
To be clear, are you saying that the existence of moral laws is self-evident, that the source of the moral laws is self-evident, or both?
PPPS, I should also note that kids have to be taught it is a fallacy when used to try to dismiss a SET. Do kids have to be taught that 2 + 3 = 5? Does that mean that such is not self evident and even independent of us and our views? Which, does not mean, it is obvious. It means that, for one of adequate experience, such a truth is seen as so, and as necessarily so on pain of immediate, patent absurdity. By contrast 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 is necessarily true as is the wider theorem and the onward Apollonius’ theorem, but the why of it is not of self evident character. Similarly, the denial of objective moral truth is self evidently false for one aware that such is by implication a claimed objective truth about duty, ought, virtue, honour, justice etc. So, it is instantly self defeating by exemplifying what it denies.
VB writes:
I’m confused. Is the only reason you tell the truth the fear of God’s judgment? Personally, I have found that being truthful has benefited me far more than it has caused me harm. Why wouldn’t I want to pass this experience on to my kids?
Origenes, I am saying, with explanation given and repeated illustration from attempted objection, that certain first duties and principles of reason — and first law [the highest reason . . . ] — put on the table by Cicero in summarising the classical deposit, are self evident and knowable. They are branch on which we all sit, pervasive first principles. They are so pervasive that we cannot but appeal to them, first, if one attempts to prove them, one already appeals to them at the outset. If one tries to object, one is claiming or implying failed duty to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, etc, thus defeating the attempted defeater. In short, these are part of the antecedent frame in which we address facts, evidence, argument, proof decisions, etc. However, it is clear that these cut across the paradigms we have been taught in and it will take a struggle to see them for what they are. KF
PS, as for God as self evidently real, that may be so for some of sufficient purity, reflection and experience to see more clearly than we do today; we are not in such a state of grace, perhaps the angels are. But for us, what is self evident is the systematic and manifestly indefensible, civilisation wide power backed suppression of whatever might just invite in him who so many clearly resent and even despise. That raises questions of less than innocent ignorance and tainted skepticism.
FP, do you not see many who gain much by lies and fraud, and die in full benefit of ill gotten gains? Is that not a commonplace? In short, VB is right to highlight that without the eternal reckoning, it is simply not the case that truth telling is to one’s advantage, short or long term. More to the point, kids have to be taught is a fallacy in this context, as was noted. KF
Ford
“I’m confused.”
What else is new?
“Is the only reason you tell the truth the fear of God’s judgment?”
Irrelevant
.
“Personally, I have found that being truthful has benefited me far more than it has caused me harm. “
Irrelevant
“Why wouldn’t I want to pass this experience on to my kids?”
Irrelevant, try again with something that is not irrelevant
Unless you believe they will ultimately be judged by an ultimate judge the above ,telling the truth is ultimately in their best interest , is false.
Vivid
VB, if your entire argument is over my sloppy use of the word “ultimate”, I think our discussion is over. I am not interested in wasting my time with someone who plays word games.
Kairosfocus writes:
And what do they gain? Money? Possessions? Power over others? Sure. But what about love, respect, friendship, trust, true happiness, self respect, etc? You don’t gain those by lying to others.
If you need the threat of an eternal reconning to be truthful then I pity you.
FB
“VB, if your entire argument is over my sloppy use of the word “ultimate”, I think our discussion is over.”
You’re blaming me for addressing what you wrote? This is pathetic.
Regardless I am happy to eliminate the words you wrote ( ultimately)
FB “Just because I believe that it is xxxxx in their best interest to tell the truth”
Now not only is your response to me pathetic but in 141 you double down on stupid and affirm what I said originally that the above is false! Hint, you agreed that I am correct in my assessment. Let’s see if you can identify where you did so?
Vivid
KF re 141
Don’t get goaded into responding to FB’ irrelevant comments, the questions posed to you have nothing to do with the topic on the table. The word that comes to mind is “chaff”
Vivid
FB
BTW what you believe is in one’s self interest is irrelevant. People lie all the time because it is in their self interest to do so.
Vivid
FP, all I note is, many of those I have seen directly or note from history etc have all the love, respect etc they want; I recall one whose wife even encouraged him in bedding and impregnating other women, IIRC he was an SS commandant of a concentration camp, the idea was there was need for more and more of suitable aryan stock. The claim is irrelevant to the focal point as VB has raised. And, notice, again the underlying appeals to branch on which we sit principles. Meanwhile, of course the focal matter I answered from 11 is still on the table. KF
F/N (attn PM1, VL, JVL etc): I find these remarks by Alexander Pruss, interesting:
This of course fits well with my remarks above on possible worlds, save he emphasises this world. As I noted, I view a mathematical axiomatisation or model or linked simulation as laying out an abstract, logic model world. Then, there are scenarios used in say decision theory and related games [often, war games, and IIRC, war game orders in 1940 were transferred to the real world after the May 10, 1940 attack].
Then, there is the literary side, where a literary world can act as a simulation.
Similarly, actual history can lay out relevant patterns, serving as a sort of microcosm, a very useful one being the ill fated voyage and shipwreck in Ac 27.
This too shows that adequacy for relevant purposes can involve something far less elaborate than the sort of comprehensive cosmological discussion hinted at. Models seek to capture the material essence of a situation, and can be plugged into a wider environment taken as a given.
Where, too, with abstract mathematical worlds, identification of necessary elements then allows confident transfers to any actual or possible world. I identify NZQRCR* as key to that core, broader even than ZFC which is an axiomatisation in that context. Also, of course, broader than the Euclidean axiomatisation. Where I again note that we actually use Euclidean AND non Euclidean frames for different things in our day to day world, sometimes simultaneously, e.g. spherical geometry for navigation and projective geometry for perspective or even for map making and use. Mercator is a Cylindrical, highly distorting projection but it makes lines of longitude and latitude into a rectangular grid.
And more.
KF
PS, The quincunx or Galton Board, then comes back into focus as a mechanical simulation of a probability distribution. As I noted in 11 above, which still stands:
KF@
There are principles of reason that no one can coherently reason without. I agree.
You speak of “duty” to right reason. Perhaps I should ask you this: are you saying that it is self-evident that we are dealing with a “duty”? For instance, do we all have a duty to hold coherent beliefs? Do we have a duty to make sense?
A friend of mine holds the belief that God determines our every move, that everything is set in stone from the outset, but that, nonetheless, each human being bears full responsibility for his own actions. His long-held belief is based on his interpretation of the writings of Martin Luther. He told me that he is long aware of the contradiction, but accepts it anyway because it “captures the enigmatic nature of reality.” To him, it makes sense somehow.
I told him that he is , of course, free to believe anything he wants, but I also informed him that his belief doesn’t make any sense to me. Would you disagree with me and say that my friend is neglecting his “duty” to right reason?
KF@
When I reflect on the undeniable presence of FSCO/I in life and the fabric of the universe, the existence of an intelligent designer is as self-evident as it is in the case of Paley’s watch.
@146
I have no objection at all to Pruss’s point that modal discourse is ineliminable from our conceptual framework, and that a purely non-modal discourse could not be used by beings with minds like ours. (This is one way of understanding the significance of Kant’s response to Hume.)
But, I don’t see how it bears on the question of ontology. Modal discourse is necessary for us to cope with the world, regardless of whether we are committed to modal realism (all possible worlds are real in the exact same sense that the actual world is real) or modal actualism (modal discourse represents different ways that the actual world could be).
And I don’t see how that debate, interesting as it is, has any bearing on whether or not God exists.
Likewise, I still don’t understand the argument that we need to posit moral oughtness at the very foundation of our ontology in order to circumvent Hume’s “guillotine”. It seems pretty clear to me that accounts of the evolution of cooperation* (e.g. recent work by Tomasello or Pettit) are not endangered by Hume’s guillotine, yet it would seem that you think that such accounts are somehow insufficient. I’d be curious to know why you think that.
* I’m very excited about this new book by Hamilton, Natural Citizens: Ethical Formation as Biological Development!
Origenes,
I would suggest that FSCO/I, whether in Paley’s watch of Ch 1 or the self replicating one in Ch 2, or the even more evident case of the self replicating, metabolising, code using cell, is adequate and even compelling evidence that warrants the inference, best explained as designed, with no serious alternative.
So much so, that arguments of resistance and dismissal of inference to design on such signs are manifestly strained and weak.
It is a second level of inference, to observe that design comes from intelligent agents, with adequate capability.
In the case of cell based life, that evidence can be accounted for on a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter, Tour et al. The latter suggests, we are 500 years behind the curve, I am a little more optimistic and suggest, across this century or a little beyond.
Turning to the cosmos, the fine tuning evidence points to intelligent design, raising pretty serious questions of a designer of that level of capability, especially as a causal temporal, thermodynamic order is inherently past finite. We need a necessary being world root capable of designing and effecting a universe.
The resistance to that one is even weaker on the merits.
KF
PM1, our perceptions, opinions, doubts, skepticism, etc are worth less than the change in our pockets at the end of the day. The question, always, ever, is warrant. Pruss is responding to various debates and I find his thoughts give useful side lights. He has shown that modal issues are inextricably intertwined with our thinking, are therefore part of the fabric of reasoned thoughts. In that context, we may freely ponder how this world and items in it or that may be in it or that cannot be in it, may be or not be, logic of being. Where, we can ponder worlds or models or frameworks equally freely, as ways other worlds might be etc, and we can identify what is impossible vs possible of being and of the latter, contingent [and caused] vs necessary as fabric to any possible world. We are here already addressing on reason ways of being and non being, thus logic of being or more technically ontology. We are contingent and not self explanatory, as are fires. Two-ness as already discussed is inherent in there being any distinct possible world, and directly connected, NZQRCR* etc, with linked relationships properties and transworld power that answers to Wigner’s wonder on the power of mathematics. It turns out that mathematical systems turning on axioms specify logic model worlds, which can be possible worlds, an irretrievable contradiction in a system would make that an impossible world. As to God, as was already outlined, we know a transfinite span of finite stages [years for convenience] cannot be traversed in steps, so our world and quasi-physical antecedents that are causal-temporal and thermodynamic are inherently finite in the past. We need a finitely remote necessary being world — and wider reality — root. That root must be capable of a fine tuned cosmos as we inhabit, and will also need to be adequate to ground rational, responsible, morally governed creatures such as we are. God is highly relevant to such, as was already outlined. KF
PS, enough has been said to show why God would bridge the is-ought gap and would ground oughtness at reality root. That should be acknowledged. As God is at minimum a serious candidate NB, then God is either impossible of being or actual. I suggest, there are no good reasons to believe God is impossible of being and it is manifest that goodness and wisdom as well as world creating power are key attributes of God, so a demiurge or the like not at that level is not God.
Origenes,
in steps of thought:
>>There are principles of reason that no one can coherently reason without. I agree.>>
1: Yes, for example absent distinct identity, language would fail. Distinct identity has as close corollaries non contradiction and the excluded middle.
>>You speak of “duty” to right reason. Perhaps I should ask you this: are you saying that it is self-evident that we are dealing with a “duty”?>>
2: Yes, and your questions echo the force of that duty. You sense truth is pivotal and that failing to attain it (especially through taking wrong turns in thought) is less than we ought to be.
>> For instance, do we all have a duty to hold coherent beliefs? Do we have a duty to make sense?>>
3: Yes, often failed. We must be aware that a key contradiction breaks a system through turning it into meaninglessness, and that we must be willing to give it up if we detect such.
4: This becomes especially tricky as on big questions, there is normally a lot of self referentiality so we need to avoid incoherence and other errors of thought. Their name is legion, there are big books on just fallacies.
>>A friend of mine holds the belief that God determines our every move, that everything is set in stone from the outset, but that, nonetheless, each human being bears full responsibility for his own actions.>>
5: We live in a day where our education has been sadly negligent on sound reasoning and have been taught to doubt and dismiss the need for coherence.
6: The theology here seems defective. This is not a theology forum, but it does seem that he is in self referential incoherence. If we are not sufficiently free to be rational, we are not free enough to be responsible. We do not blame a tiger for what it does.
>> His long-held belief is based on his interpretation of the writings of Martin Luther. He told me that he is long aware of the contradiction, but accepts it anyway because it “captures the enigmatic nature of reality.” To him, it makes sense somehow.>>
7: Ex falso, quodlibet. Principle of explosion, incoherence undermines our ability to discern truth and falsity.
>>I told him that he is , of course, free to believe anything he wants, but I also informed him that his belief doesn’t make any sense to me.>>
8: And, responsible for it too.
>> Would you disagree with me and say that my friend is neglecting his “duty” to right reason?>>
9: Would he treat instructions on a medical prescription or the terms of a contract or his annual income tax returns in the same way?
KF
KF @
I agree wholeheartedly. As an aside, as you noted elsewhere, logic is about being. I would like to add the following idea: it points to self-aware being, to consciousness. I would argue that only a conscious being can produce the laws of identity, distinct identity, and so on. I believe these laws must be abstractions based on the notions “I” and “not-I.”
Perhaps a duty can only be sensed when one has a tendency to do otherwise. When “I ought to do” differs from “I want to do.” But when there is no light between them, the ought is not drawing attention.
This disharmony between “I want” and “I ought” can be explained, as you do, by a moral law imposed on the person. You draw a circle around the person and his want, and say (paraphrasing): “that is the whole person, the ought must come from elsewhere.” However, we often experience disharmony in ourselves, sometimes we want to stay and go home at the same time.
For the sake of harmonious existence, I want to apply the golden rule to (most) people. The implicit agreement between them and me is: I treat you well, and you treat me well. For one thing, the application of the golden rule explains my behavioral rule: allow people to finish their sentences and listen to them attentively. Again, this I do because that is how I want them to treat me and also because I want to be liked. However, sometimes the impulse to interrupt what I perceive as nonsense or untruth is very strong. That brings me into conflict with myself: I want to apply the golden rule by allowing others to finish their sentences and listen attentively to what they say (which can be interpreted as an ‘ought’) and I ‘want’ (strong impulse) to interrupt. Both at the same time.
So, like you I have the experience of disharmony between ‘ought’ and ‘want’, but, unlike you, I explain both of them as originating from myself. I draw the circle of identity around me, my want and my ought.
@151
Firstly: sure, maybe one could one get around the is-ought problem by stipulating that moral goodness is at the foundation of reality? Sure, maybe — though that would need serious scrutiny. But before getting to that, I’d like to know why you think that accounting the emergence of rationality and morality in evolutionary terms is insufficient. At any rate, Hume’s own arguments don’t allow us to rule out that family of views, so I’d like to know on what basis you do rule them out.
Secondly: whether or God is even possible depends on how one defines God. I would not want to rule out a priori that there are some definitions of God which do entail logical contradictions and hence are impossible.
Thirdly, it doesn’t follow that if it is not logically impossible for God to exist, then God actually does exist. If it’s not logically impossible for God to exist, then it’s possible for God to exist. One would still need a separate argument to show that God must exist.
In other words: supposing that there must be a necessary being sufficiently powerful to create a universe in which there are norm-governed beings such as ourselves*, and supposing that the God of classical theism is not a contradiction in terms**, one would still need some further argument as to why we ought to believe that the necessary being is the God of classical theism.
* Sean Carroll has a nice paper arguing that the supposition of a necessary being existing independently of the universe is not supported by contemporary cosmology.
** I”m on the fence about this — everything depends on the fine-grained details of what kind of being we imagine God to be. I do think that nothing could literally be an absolutely unlimited mind. Briefly: the concept of mind that we know how to use, the concept that makes sense to us, always involves limited beings — organisms — that need to sense and respond to features of their environments. To speak of an unlimited mind is to use the word “mind” in a context where the usual meaning can no longer apply. It is not a contradiction, but it may very well be nonsense.
All good points, PM. I’ll be interested to see which of them are addressed.
[moderated out, ouch]
F/N, I think I went over the link limit, retry:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PM1:
For record, in steps:
>>Firstly: sure, maybe one could one get around the is-ought problem by stipulating that moral goodness is at the foundation of reality?>>
1: A half concession, about to be taken back rhetorically.
2: The actuality is, we have a longstanding worldview, ethical theism, in which both Hume’s Guillotine on ungrounded ought and the Euthyphro dilemma are answered by first showing that we inherently have a finite past order [the thermodynamic, temporal causal succession of years cannot traverse a transfinite span] so we must have a causally adequate necessary being world root at finite remove. Where of course there is also a point that the contingency also obtains for our world on other grounds such that were its past indefinitely large, contingency still obtains. (For simple starters, look at fine tuning etc.)
3: Secondly, we observe that what my Haitian brothers and sisters call Le Bon Dieu, just taken as a serious candidate NB, would unify in one being both goodness with wisdom and a necessary being adequate to cause worlds.
4: Where, it is a general result that serious candidate NB’s are either impossible of being (as a Euclidean space square circle is . . . incoherence of core characteristics), or is actual.
5: Given your stance on oh maybe but you must prove to arbitrarily skeptical satisfaction, another significant worldview alternative with that potential is distinctly scarce to absent. How do we know this? Were there such, it would be trumpeted far and wide, would be in million subscriber, million hit podcasts, would be all over this blog. That’s the ghostly elephant in the middle of the room.
>> Sure, maybe — though that would need serious scrutiny.>>
6: The hyperskeptical stance that doubt prevails over all and can be used to sideline is an inferior good substituting for duty to prudence.
>> But before getting to that,>>
7: The rhetorical sidelining.
>> I’d like to know why you think that accounting the emergence of rationality and morality in evolutionary terms is insufficient.>>
8: We all know that evolutionary materialist scientism is grossly inadequate to ground ought. Allow Provine’s summary [studiously sidelined] to speak for itself:
>> At any rate, Hume’s own arguments don’t allow us to rule out that family of views,>>
9: Sez who, quoting Arthur Leff. We can review Provine and many others in excruciating detail, but the point is, this is a classic argument that runs is-is — gap [and without roots] — ought-ought. It reduces duty to delusion and manipulation, will to power crouching at the door.
[cont’d]
F.N: Okay, first part got through, it is the link limit:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[continuing]
>> so I’d like to know on what basis you do rule them out.>>
10: I didn’t rule them out, personalisation and polarisation of a widely known challenge fails. Provine and others have said the quiet part out loud. The burden to ground oughtness and bridge the is-ought gap is unmet from your side, on balance of evidence.
11: It is relevant to further expose some underlying evolutionary materialistic thinking by highlighting Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson in their notorious 1991 essay . . . readily available in the literature and presumably known to you, “The Evolution of Ethics” — on, the precise line you are taking:
Will Hawthorne, in reply to such ideological imposition, is deservedly withering, echoing the concerns Plato raised in The Laws, Bk X 2360+ years ago, and obviously longstanding in and foundational to the literature, concerns that reflect lessons hard-bought with blood and tears in living memory, there is no excuse:
12: Worse, this was known ahead of time, the same lesson was pointed out on the history of Athens’ failure that put democracy in the shade for 2,000 years as a dubious form of government. Yes, this is not a mere academic exercise. Plato, warns:
13: We can presume, prior knowledge of such in the literature, so the you prove it stance collapses.
>>Secondly: whether or God is even possible depends on how one defines God.>>
14: Such is on the table, per logic of being requisites, as was laid out: we need a NB, finitely remote world root adequate to ground a cosmos and responsible, rational, significantly free creatures capable of credible reason in it. The explanatory alternative on the table multiple times above (and over the years) is the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being.
>> I would not want to rule out a priori that there are some definitions of God which do entail logical contradictions and hence are impossible.>>
15: There is a specific understanding, why substitute a strawman by hints, especially in aftermath of Plantinga’s discussion of the failure and collapse of the problem of evil. That’s 50 years ago now.
>>Thirdly, it doesn’t follow that if it is not logically impossible for God to exist, then God actually does exist.>>
16: Notice, what you side stepped, setting up a strawman target: serious candidate necessary being. This is not specific to God, this is a general result on logic of being in a world manifesting contingent entities from a pencil to us to, credibly, our whole cosmos commonly said to have begun a bit under 14 BYA.
>> If it’s not logically impossible for God to exist, then it’s possible for God to exist. One would still need a separate argument to show that God must exist.>>
17: Strawman fallacy continues, studiously ignoring what is on the table. If you mean, God is not a serious candidate NB, in the face of thousands of years of thought, kindly give your reasons. Also, your half concession suggests that you cannot give a good argument that God as understood on ethical theism is an incoherent concept.
18: In short, Plantinga is the 800 lb gorilla standing next to the elephant in the middle of the room. His case has been made, the problem of evil is in forced semi retirement.
>>In other words: supposing that there must be a necessary being sufficiently powerful to create a universe in which there are norm-governed beings such as ourselves*, and supposing that the God of classical theism is not a contradiction in terms**, >>
19: Having beat up the strawmen, you now act as though no case has been made.
20: Assuming, a NB? Nope, over the course of three years, it was hammered out here why a causal-temporal, thermodynamic world cannot reasonably have spanned a transfinite succession of years to now, as that is an infeasible supertask. Past finite, even going to a q-foam subcosmos with bubbling up subcosmi, indeed, there are fairly serious results on the point in contemporary physics. Recall, thermodynamics here is about stochastic behaviour of multiple particles in a world of energy, so it is in the end a mathematical constraint backed by well established empirical findings.
21: Similarly, the true nothing — pace Krauss, Dawkins [populariser] et al — is non being, which can have no causal capability. Were there ever the case that utter non being prevails, such would forever obtain, therefore. Likewise, circular retrocausation in whatever guise, appeals to the not yet as root cause and falls under the same stricture.
22: In short, we may freely hold that, if a world now is, something always was, the necessary being reality root. Which is a bill of requisites, serious candidates are invited to apply. Neither flying spaghetti monsters nor quantum foams qualify.
>>one would still need some further argument as to why we ought to believe that the necessary being is the God of classical theism.>>
22: The no argument strawman continues. We can take it, that this stance implies there is no cogent answer to what is on the table. Where, “classical” implies knowledge of a longstanding framework for understanding God as serious candidate,
>>* Sean Carroll has a nice paper arguing that the supposition of a necessary being existing independently of the universe is not supported by contemporary cosmology.>>
23: Cosmology is after the fact of a cosmos, insofar as it is a science rather than metaphysics dressed up in a lab coat. There is every good reason to hold that our cosmos and a prior q-foam etc are contingent, being inherently past finite. Further, fine tuning etc point to the same result, even were these past transfinite. So, Carroll is wrong on basic thermodynamics and the logic of transfinite traverse for a thermodynamically constrained order.
>>** I”m on the fence about this — everything depends on the fine-grained details of what kind of being we imagine God to be.>>
24: There is a fairly specific and longstanding understanding on the table, one that say the ordinary Haitian so understands that it is explicit in his or her term for God: Le Bon Dieu. It would be reasonable for you to address this, especially on necessary and maximally great being.
>> I do think that nothing could literally be an absolutely unlimited mind. >>
25: Strawman caricature of maximal greatness, which explicitly involves compossibility of core attributes.
>>Briefly: the concept of mind that we know how to use, the concept that makes sense to us, always involves limited beings — organisms — that need to sense and respond to features of their environments.>>
26: Oh, we have limited, contingent, fallible minds so we doubt a maximal mind with compossible attributes. Doubt trumps all, we need not actually address a substantial case. Fail, strawman caricature.
>> To speak of an unlimited mind is to use the word “mind” in a context where the usual meaning can no longer apply.>>
27: The doubt-strawman dismissive tactic again. Actually, self moved rational agency, what mind is about, has plenty of room at the top for a maximally rational, maximally wise, maximally good intelligence. There is no inherently alien conception involved, just perfection of what we have in part and see in part, darkly yes, but we do see.
28: Where, to credibly reason, warrant and know we have to be such agents, this is in the end an issue that mind is real to do science but evolutionary materialistic scientism undermines mind. J B S Haldane knew better 90 years ago. We must not saw off the branch on which we must sit.
>> It is not a contradiction, >>
29: Quite the forced admission, given the history and Plantinga’s argument, not to mention the significance of serious candidate necessary being.
>>but>>
30: We are about to pull the hyperskeptical, dismissive rhetorical move.
>> it may very well>>
31: Weasel words, that evade duty of warranting a claim, behind a shield of hyperskepticism. A move that is tantamount to a backhanded admission of want of a substantial case.
>> be nonsense.>>
32: Meaningless, meaningless, they cry, triumphantly. However, stripped of the hyperskeptical tactic, we find a need to ask, why meaningless, given a longstanding established meaning and discussion at top level of our civilisation?
33: Is this a hint of the ghost of logical positivism that refuted itself by being self referentially incoherent in trying to stipulate that only the analytically presumed axiom or the empirically, operationally vindicated could be meaningful?
34: That points to, that this verifiability criterion failed its own test and died about 50 years ago, hence the ghost. Ontological discussion is meaningful.
35: Further, the discussion of mind, maximally great mind, goodness that is inherent and pure, utter wisdom and great making properties to maximal compossible degree are all meaningful and coherent; so, ethical theism is also meaningful as opposed to the dismissive, shielded gambit, “nonsense.”
36: Still missing in action, a suitably laid out alternative reality root level necessary being causally adequate for our cosmos, one with morally governed creatures in it. A significant missing factor.
KF
Those who enjoy coherent thinking ought to subscribe to philosopher W. F. Vallicella’s substack-page. I am pretty sure that Kairosfocus will like the following article:
@157
I don’t even know who Provine is, and I don’t really care. I didn’t even refer to him in the course of elucidating my own views. I’ve referred in the past to Dewey and to Kropotkin, and in 149, I referred to Tomasello and to Philip Pettit. Other philosophers who have influenced my views on this issue would include Alastair MacIntyre (in Dependent Rational Animals), Philippa Foot (in Natural Goodness), and Philip Kitcher (in The Ethical Project).
Now, if you want to know more about these views, you can feel free to ask. And I don’t mind explaining why I think Provine is wrong. But I would prefer that you not dismiss my views by associating them with someone I haven’t read or referred to. Likewise, I don’t mind explaining why I think Plato’s criticism of ancient Greek atomism don’t apply to my views.
With regard to your dismissal of Carroll: well, one you has made important contributions to cosmology and quantum field theory, and I’m not inclined to think it’s you.
PM1, your opinion is not what counts, substance does. The point is even stronger in Crick, another well known spokesman:
Plato was specifically responding to ancient atomism and fellow traveller views (the sophists and Alcibiades) but we both know the substantial point is far wider than that. Atoms, molecules, fields etc are all ises and do not rise to either mind nor ought. Computationalism is categorically different from rational responsible self moved freedom, and relative opinions are not oughts; as Hawthorne pointed out in response to further spokesmen such as the well known Ruse and Wilson in a fairly well known essay, so, it remains the case that fundamentally materialistic systems are unable to account for ought. Emergentism beyond say interactions of Na and Cl ions in a salt crystal, is little more than something from nothing by poof magic.
Turning to Carroll, it is a simple matter of the nature of science that sciences are after the fact of an observable cosmos. Which, by the logic of an infeasible supertask, cannot be past infinite; above and beyond the only actual observations, which point to 14 BYA. The q-foam is already speculative and so metaphysics.
And, cosmology insofar as it is a science is within not beyond the span of observable reality. That’s science 101.
KF
@161
It seems evident that you want to conduct the conversation on the basis of what you already know and aren’t interested in where I’m actually coming from. Adieu.
PM1@
Two questions about emergent consciousness:
Suppose that emergentism is real. Suppose that from the physical brain substrate, consciousness emerges with real top-down mental powers. That is, the emergent consciousness can steer the neurons in the brain in order to have the thoughts that it wants, rather than the “thoughts” that arise from the level of blind particles in the void.
Two questions about this scenario:
1. How does the emergent consciousness know which neurons to manipulate and how? Does it have a map of the brain and an instruction manual? If not, how does it know what to do?
2. Which tool(s) are available for consciousness to steer the neurons in the direction that it wants? IOW how does the manipulation of neurons work?
@163
I would not want to say that consciousness is a wholly immaterial entity or thing that controls the brain. I would rather say that consciousness is a feature of the embodied brain, which exerts top-down control over the rest of the organism.
PM1@
The same questions apply:
So, how does a “feature of the embodied brain” exert its top-down control over the brain?
1. How does “a feature of the embodied brain” know which neurons to manipulate and how? Does it have a map of the brain and an instruction manual? If not, how does it know what to do?
2. Which tool(s) are available for “a feature of the embodied brain” to steer the neurons in the direction that it wants? IOW how does the manipulation of neurons work?
PM1, again, insubstantial. Arguments do start from givens, and for one, sciences study the going concern world in ways that are empirically accountable. They do not go beyond that, there is a slipping across a border into metaphysics when they do. Next, while I do not wish to critique Carroll’s hinted at rather than substantiated argument in detail, let’s take a snippet from this 2018 Arxiv paper:
That’s reification of a mathematical property.
To compare, ponder a simple and familiar exercise, turning on an oscilloscope to ponder a waveform, e.g. a sinusoid, and also turning on a spectrum analyser in parallel. By mathematical definition, a sinusoid is past and future eternal, the trace on screen will look pretty much as the familiar graph and the signal analyser will have a peak. Extend to more complex forms such as a square wave, we will see multiple peaks at periodic intervals on the spectrum analyser. Fourier analysis will tell us an arbitrary periodic waveform is made up of a sum of related sinusoids, each being past and future eternal. Now, feed in an impulse, say through a microphone picking up a drum. We now see a pulse, usually of complex shape and an envelope on the spectum analyser, i.e. the Fourier prediction of a continuous spectrum, per fourier integral. (You can try this by downloading say, Real Time Analyser and looking at time domain and frequency domain panes, especially the waterfall view.)
So, have we just proved that the physical world is past and future infinite, as the Fourier equations say so?
No.
We are simply up against a familiar border, the gap between physicality and mathematical, abstract logic-model worlds. A similar case is the Newtonian particle, which strictly is a mathematical point of infinite density. And there are others.
In short, Mathematical models do not “prove” past infinities any more than they prove future infinities long after the oscilloscope, spectrum analyser and signal sources would have been turned off. Much less, crumbled into dust as the cosmos moves to heat death.
Far more relevant would be the thermodynamics hinted at, which point onward to heat death, and applied backward, would have arrived there long since on a long enough past. That’s before the absurdities of a claimed transfinite past traversal of years would have been accomplished. Especially, as time on cosmological scope is bound up in thermodynamically constrained energy processes. Time is the dimension in which energy concentrations are dissipated, driven by pretty inexorable stochastic, molecular scale processes.
So, we must mark a distinction between the logic-model and the physical.
I hope that helps to clarify why I insist on the understanding that sciences address the going concern, empirically accountable world. There is a lot of lab coat clad speculation, but that is beyond science.
This applies to the onward jumps to IF, then we have poof an eternal, causeless universe.
Not an adequate model thermodynamically, absent an infinite energy source beyond the system boundary. Which defeats the causelessness.
And more.
KF
Origenes you need a system architect and a programmer. We keep on seeing models that try to get complex information rich organisation fine tuned to function, from grossly inadequate causal sources. KF
KF@
Yes, also here right? An emergent consciousness (arguendo assuming that such exists) is in need of vast amounts of information in order to steer 86 billion neurons in the brain. This information has to **emerge** simultaneously with the emergent consciousness, otherwise, it doesn’t know what to do. BTW how does emergent consciousness process this information? And. of course, the emergence of manipulation tools is also required. Perhaps PM1@ can tell us what those tools look like.
Origenes: How does “a feature of the embodied brain” know which neurons to manipulate and how? Does it have a map of the brain and an instruction manual? If not, how does it know what to do?
It doesn’t intentionally manipulate neurone. Even my dog can have a memory of a past event and react accordingly when a similar situation occurs.
Which tool(s) are available for “a feature of the embodied brain” to steer the neurons in the direction that it wants? IOW how does the manipulation of neurons work?
No biological system is focused on manipulating particular neurones. If that were true then each human would have to have a different schematic because everyone’s brain is wired a bit differently.
But let’s hear how you think it all works from your dualist point of view . . . how does a disembodied mind influences nerves when, for example, playing football? How does the immaterial trigger the right neurones to fire when throwing a forward pass? Or, if you prefer, how does an immaterial mind figure out how to paint a picture, from memory, of the artist’s childhood home? Or, if you prefer, how does an immaterial mind trigger the blink reflex when an object approaches an eye quickly?
It seems to me that the dualist view is much, much more complicated and fraught with error than the materialist view. If all thinking and reactions and responses have to be generated by a non-physical . . . entity then conveyed to the physical body/brain then carried out (along with feedback from any physical interaction having to come back up the pipe, get processed and then a reaction pushed out) why isn’t there a larger lag between input and reaction? How can the communication between the brain and the mind be instantaneous? No science fiction answers please; either you have an answer or you don’t.
If you want to have a competing explanation then please provide that explanation.
JVL@
Good question to which I do not know the answer. I don’t even understand how a microbe functions, let alone a human being. However (and this is a huge ‘however’), unlike you, I am allowed to refer to an intelligent cause. I can argue that it is conceivable that an intelligent ‘system architect / programmer, as KF calls it, can make things work. You are forced to explain things from blind unmotivated particles in the void.
Origenes: I can argue that it is conceivable that an intelligent ‘system architect and a programmer, as KF calls it, can make things work.
Conceivable? But you have no idea how that would work. I’m not sure that IS conceivable. That sounds more like wishful thinking.
AND, remember, there is a lot of research that has been done and is being done and will be done regarding how the brain interacts with the body to produce movements and reactions. What can you test in a lab to check out your, admittedly, non-existent theory of how dualism physically works?
JVL @
I am a rational person. Physical determinism does not allow for a rational person. So, it is not wishful thinking at all. It has to be the case that I steer the brain, or I am not rational.
Physical determinism does not allow for a rational person who is in control of his thoughts. Dualism has to be true, or we are not rational.
Here is the ironclad proof:
1. If physical determinism is true, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born.
2. We have no control over circumstances that existed in the remote past before we were born, nor do we have any control over the laws of nature.
3. If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B.
Therefore
4. If physical determinism is true, then we have no control over our own actions and thoughts ….
Origenes: Here is the ironclad proof:
So, your appearance of trying to have a dialogue is just a feint?
I have no interest in having a discussion with someone who is already convinced they are correct.
I have strong convictions and beliefs but, because of what some of the contributors here have said, I have changed some of my stances. I think that’s a good and honest approach. And indicative of my wanting to explore areas of disagreement. You seem to lack that interest in this area. So I won’t be pursuing the topic any further. And I’d ask you to cease trying to lure people in with the pretence that you have an open mind.
Origenes, your “ironclad proof” ends with
That’s a common error. Without realizing it, you are implicitly assuming dualism. Your statement is equivalent to “If physical determinism is true, then I (this entity separate from the body) have no control over the body, which is out of my control and following the deterministic laws of physics.”
But under physicalism, you aren’t separate from your body. You are your body. Your body isn’t some separate rogue element of you that is dragging around the real you.
When your body picks up an object, you are picking up the object. You — the body — are in control of your action.
@165
The global features of the brain aren’t a separate entity that controls the neurons: the whole constrains what the parts are able to do.
@172
You make things just a little too convenient for yourself by dismissing every alternative to “determinism or dualism” as irrational, meaningless, gibberish, magic, etc.
My main objection to determinism is that it’s based on comparatively simple systems governed by linear equations. I don’t think it’s plausible to think that the physical world is deterministic once we take into account what complexity theory is showing us about the world, forcing us to abandon simple models and easy calculations.
PM1@
That does not seem to address my concerns. Because the whole must ‘constrain’ the parts in such a way, that they get involved in free choices, reasoning, world view, intentionality, typing sentences, and so on … So, that must be a very flexible and precise constraint. So, the same questions return. For instance, how does the whole ‘constrain’ neurons in such a way that they get involved in, let’s say, the issue of morality?
Another concern of mine is the following. We are talking about top-down causation. The ‘whole’, you say, constrains the neurons, it steers the neurons rather than the neurons steering the whole. Top-down causation. Ok.
But to have top-down causation, there must be a top level that exerts its power downwards onto the lower (chemical) levels of the brain. My question is: what level is exactly independent of the lower chemical levels of the brain? Is there a mental level independent from the brain chemistry (the ‘whole’ perhaps) where thoughts, feelings, and intentions are? A level that can be said to have top-down causation from a certain independence of chemistry? And if there is no such level, then what is doing the top-down causation? If there is no such thing as a person with all its attributes that is independent of the brain, then what is it that exerts top-down causation?
(double post removed)
F/N: Let me clip from another Arxiv paper (by Magain and Hauret) to illustrate issues about time and its import, again, to document here a factor needed to appreciate the significance of “a causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained world”:
This is itself sufficient to underscore that time is itself a complex matter and that it is deeply connected to thermodynamics and to cause.
KF
JVL [and attn PM1 et al],
are you convinced you are correct? Or, that at least O is incorrect or the like?
See, the self referentiality involved?
Across the history of science, math and ideas more generally, as a matter of simple record of fact many fruitful discussions were held between people of diverse convictions. The issue is, that our opinions are worth less than pocket change, but substance and warrant are treasures of great price. So, we should be highlighting merits of fact and logic, issues of assumptions and underlying worldviews further shaped by recognition of comparative difficulties and the vexed challenge of self referentiality. Where, self referential incoherence or broader absurdity is fatal to a claim.
For example, while O’s skeletal on determinism is strictly valid, it is limited. It does prove something that for cause has often been emphasised here at UD, any species of determinism is self referentially absurd, undermining credibility of mind.
A sounder startpoint, then is to accept the face value of our experience, we are responsible, rational [though error prone] significantly free, morally governed creatures with knowable first principles and duties of reason. Now, expanding, let us use the general frame, that brains etc are dynamic-stochastic systems instead, expanding to include chance elements. As in, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Then:
Where, we can give the usual formulation of such GPDSCaCh, as evolutionary materialism, in Plato’s day, as philosophy; in ours, as an aspect of scientism. Which is itself a further error; science, strictly, cannot monopolise knowledge.
This broader result clearly follows from the logic and exposes the fatal self referentiality of such schemes. Nor is this a particularly unusual finding, it is part of what Plato pointed to in The Laws Bk X, and it is what lies behind J B S Haldane, here, as skeletonised and augmented:
This issue lurks behind much of what goes on above and should be borne in mind.
KF
PS, Nancy Pearcey:
I trust, the above will help us rebalance and refocus.
PPS, clearly, as morality is a reasonably identifiable domain, this also extends to knowledge of morality. Where, I again note:
F/N: going back to the Fourier series/integral case, if we take the math literally [as opposed to as a useful, empirically reliable model], we are looking at utter determinism. As, the sinusoids involved are eternal in past and future, any observation of a sinusoid composed signal, together with its spectrum can be taken as proof that from eternity past it was pre-programmed that at some t0, a CRO and Spectrum Analyser — let’s go old fashioned analogue, dynamic-stochastic so there is no escape through it is all an algorithmic calculation — in a certain setup would happen, and then a trace on each screen would be seen [Fourier here, too] and the lot would be turned off at t1 etc. [Easy way to visualise, they are on a power strip, just cut the power to the lot with one flick of a switch, but of course, one should properly turn off instruments, transients from high power turn on/off can be damaging.] Now, extend: every transient vibration, every trajectory across time, by the magic of Fourier series and integrals, can be reduced to such chains of sinusoids. Where, in effect, we can say that a non repetitive pulse of any shape, is mathematically equivalent to a periodic waveform of infinite period, leading to the continuous spectrum. Where, that means the observation that for an observed sinusoid for a span t0 to t1, there is actually a band rather than a line on the spectrum analyser does not evade the issue but reinforces it. This is of course Laplace’s demon on steroids. We can inject noise, it makes no practical difference. Does this force dynamic stochastic dynamism as conclusion, with the implied collapse of credibility of mind? No, we just need to use common sense about the difference between mathematical ideal logic model worlds and physical observable events. As one of my old High Schools had in its rules, a breach of common sense is a breach of the school rules. The mathematics, here, frames a model, we are not dealing with necessary entity core logic of being. This extends to Laplace’s demon and other similar cases. As we saw in part above. KF
PS, a lecture on Laplace’s demon https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_Lecture_on_the_Limits_of_Human_Knowledge
Kairosfocus@
~ Excerpts from ‘The Epistemological Skyhook’, by Jim Slagle:
The quotes provided above indicate to me that Pearcey and Slagle simply do not understand naturalism. The same is true of C. S. Lewis’s “argument from reason” and Plantinga’s “evolutionary argument against naturalism.”
The crux of their error is failing to understand how naturalists themselves conceptualize the very problem that they are interested in.
The problem that interests naturalists, when they turn their attention to epistemology, is how to answer epistemological questions using cognitive science. (Churchland’s quip, quoted by Slagle above, is from the first paragraph of her 1987 “Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience”.)
One might, of course, argue against naturalists by claiming that one can’t use cognitive science to do epistemology — that one is empirical and the other is conceptual, or that is one is descriptive and the other is normative, etc. We can call that an external criticism: criticizing naturalism by standards that the naturalist need not accept.
But that is not what Plantinga, Pearcey, or Slagle are claiming to do: they are claiming to show that naturalism is self-undermining. They are purporting to provide an internal criticism, and doing that requires actually understanding how naturalists themselves understand their project.
As naturalists themselves understand their project, the starting-point is the idea of a cognitive system. The proper function of a cognitive system is perceptually guided control of behavior. This requires the ability to reliably map regularities of perceptual ‘input’ to regularities of behavioral ‘output’.
Perceptually guided control of behavior, if that behavior is to be conducive to achieving an animal’s goals and satisfying its needs, requires that the perceptual component can reliably classify similarities and differences amongst perceptual regularities (and irregularities).
It would not make sense as far as the naturalist is concerned to suppose that a cognitive system that is unable to reliably classify similarities and differences amongst perceptual regularities would be just as conducive to achieving organismal goals and satisfying needs as one that is able to do so.
But that is precisely how the scenarios sketched by Pearcey and Slagle appear, when translated into the naturalist’s preferred language.
In other words, the premise
is not a premise that the naturalist themselves would accept.
Slagle’s definition of ‘Naturalism’:
to PM: 182 is excellent, on two points, and thanks to PM for being so clear.
First, the distinction between external and internal criticism. Anti-naturalists (or anti-my position whenever I’ve tried to describe it) invariably judge by their own set of standards, and then say the other position fails for some reason (commonly, self-referentiality). Example: one will claim there are no objective moral standards and the critics will exclaim, but then you have no objective standards for judging morality. Aha, gotcha! 🙂 They want everything to be judged by their perspective. They seldom, if ever, seriously and genuinely want to know how morality is established by those who don’t think the objective standards exist: they just go straight down the slippery slope to nihilism! (I know this is quite a rant, so I hope they just all ignore me.)
The second point is that of course a naturalistic description of behavior, of all animals as well as humans, leads to reliability and truth, because otherwise they/we wouldn’t survive. Of course, this is not Truth and Reliability as the critics would want it, but that’s just another external criticism that assumes they are right about the existence of such.
The question that needs to be asked is if the believers in objective Morals and Truth, and some cosmic root of reality supporting them are wrong, then how would one account for the presence of morality, truth, reliability etc. in an empirically accurate and consistent way. That’s the question that motivates me.
@183
Thank you for that long quote! I can’t say that I’m agreeing with Slagle about anything he says, but I’ll always have some measure of respect for anyone who has the self-discipline for writing a philosophy book.
The “at some level” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. For one thing, it’s been argued at least since Kant that there’s more than one concept of teleology, and some concepts of teleology are more easily naturalized than others.
But, for another, there has been some scholarship in recent years arguing that teleology in some sense (that weasel phrase again!) can indeed be naturalized.
These are somewhat technical articles, written by academics for other academics. But I think the abstracts at least will convey the flavor of what these people are doing.
“What makes biological organisation teleological?
“On the naturalisation of teleology: self-organisation, autopoiesis and teleodynamics”
“Naturalized Teleology: Cybernetics, Organization, and Purpose“
PM1@
You can’t say that you are agreeing with Slagle about anything he says … that’s quite a statement.
You quote Slagle and proceed with derisive ‘lecturing’ commentary:
Now let’s look at the entire Slagle quote and especially the part you left out:
Slagle stresses that the relation between naturalism and teleology is a complicated matter, points out that it will be addressed in the book and where specifically, and makes clear that what follows is a provisional (“for now”) definition; that is modestly formulated (“at some level”). You remove all of that and proceed with painting Slagle as an uninformed person.
Not your finest moment.
@186
Well, you’re right that I spoke far too hastily. I’ve since read the first chapter of The Epistemological Skyhook (it was free on his webpage) and I found it much less objectionable than I was expecting to.
I would still disagree (I expect) with Slagle about a few issues.
1. I concede that I was too hasty in my inference that Slagle excludes all teleology from naturalism. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if Slagle wants to maintain that naturalism cannot accommodate rationality, then I would expect for him to say that the concept of teleology that naturalism can accept (if it can accept any at all) is not the concept of teleology that rationality requires. And while I’m open to seeing that argument, I’m also skeptical: my inclination is to say that the concept of teleology that naturalism can accommodate is all the teleology that rationality requires.
2. I share with Slagle the Kantian thought that rationality must be presupposed in any inquiry in which we can meaningfully be engaged. But I disagree with him that naturalism as such is incompatible with Kant, although some forms of it are. I read Kant as specifying the kinds of purely formal functions that any system must have if it is to generate the kinds of cognitive experiences that we manifestly have. That is at least compatible with a reading of the relevant cognitive sciences as specifying the corresponding material structures that perform those functions and of evolutionary theory as specifying the historical processes that generated those functional structures.
3. The argument about Kant’s ontological argument went by a bit too quickly for my taste (which is to be expected in an introduction!). Still I’d like to see a more developed argument for the conclusion (as it seems to be) that in denying the existence of God per se, naturalism therefore denies the existence of a necessary being and that presupposing a necessary being is required for rational thought. It seems at least an option for a naturalist to agree with Kant’s ontological argument for the existence of a necessary being, but deny that such a being must be anything like the God of classical theism.
4. Finally — and this is the big issue — from the introduction I don’t get the sense that Slagle really understands naturalism. I don’t mean that he hasn’t read X, Y, or Z — that’s not a fault, no one can read everything. I mean that he doesn’t seem to engage in the kind of interpretative empathy needed to really understand how someone very different from them sees the world. This is far from easy — in fact, it’s extremely difficult, and very few people have ever managed it at all. Slagle is so deeply unsympathetic to naturalism that I would guess he would really struggle to understand why anyone would be a naturalist at all. There’s something about how naturalists conceptualize their own cognitive and epistemic activity that he seems to struggle to comprehend. And this is not necessarily his fault — I think very few naturalists have really put in the time to explain, to people basically unsympathetic to naturalism, why naturalism might even seem to be a reasonably attractive position.
Kairosfocus,
There is a thread over at The Skeptical Zone dedicated to a discussion of your statement that
Just thought you might be interested.
Tangent, sadly, for cause I have low expectations of TSZ. The clip from me is a matter of massively supported history, many have greatly profited from their evil and have died in comfort, as they have been powerful. That is, shielded from adverse consequences. Start, with the C17 invention of the slave labour based sugar plantation in the Caribbean, which was seen as in effect a licence to mint money, it was so lucrative. Generations lived and died on the fruit of the associated oppression and it took a huge effort to get reformation. On the specific matter of falsity, many have profited from and many continue to profit from deceit, while being shielded from the consequences of such evil by their power bases. Some would point to the marketing/advertising and public relations industry as case no 1, with much of what goes on in politics, government and courts running neck and neck behind. A fair amount of what happens in finance is troublingly close to deceit, fraud and profiting from same; where, I am by no means convinced that the repeated scandals such as the current one over the theft of $ 12 million from Usain Bolt’s retirement fund, reportedly leaving just $12,000, come close to being a deterrent. Coming up behind are those who are part of the corruption of education systems. It may be that many (especially those who don’t hold enough power and are not shielded by power classes) do get found out and that eventually things can crash if a critical mass of chaos pervades a society but that does not mean that many do not profit from deceit, fraud, evil and so forth with little consequence. Many of these die in great estate and are buried with high praise, pomp and circumstance. So, it is not a general case that telling the truth is an advantage. Indeed, it is proverbially dangerous to be right when the government is wrong and fighting city hall is often a recipe for defeat and attracting relentless attack backed by big money government coffers. The eternal audit with perfect justice, presumably, will bring a true balance, but ever so many scoff at such, until it is too late. But, all of this does not change one iota, that we are duty bound to truth and other first duties. It does mean that we must understand that doing the right thing is by no means a guaranteed road to comfort, prosperity and praise . . . KF
PS, I took a glance, they are running true to sad form, totally missing the context I just amplified.
PM1@
If you are right, then Slagle has been less than forthcoming. In the preface you have just read, he writes about his skyhook against determinism and naturalism:
You’ve just finished the first chapter you say?
Well, as I see it, naturalism has been completely debunked. Darwinian evolution fails spectacularly in explaining FSCO/I. Emergentism also offers no adequate mechanism. End of story.
And even if we allow things to go further down the road, a few simple questions like the ones in posts #165 and #176 , make clear that emergentism is not a coherent concept.
And then there are several arguments that on their own have the ability to defeat naturalism. Slagle’s skyhook is just one of many arguments.
And then there are paranormal events, experienced by millions. Personally, I have witnessed a totally convincing communication with a human spirit.
“A reasonably attractive position”, you say. The idea that we are just accidental beings and that never-ending death awaits us all has no attraction to me.
VL, PM1, I think you will agree that a self contradiction in a logical system that cannot be eliminated is a fatal flaw. Indeed, proof by self contradiction of an alternative assertion is a commonplace of argument, not least in Mathematics. Notice, too, the fate of Set Theory 1.0, often illustrated by the Barber paradox, which led to modern set theory, e.g. ZFC. When it comes to worldviews and ideologies, a major source of difficulties is that our claims strongly tend to be self-referential. That means due care is needed to avert inescapable self referential incoherence, which is a clear case of contradiction, thence falsification. That was the fate, for example of the verifiability thesis of logical positivism a bit over a half century ago. Similarly, atheists and the like used to run riot with accusations that theism was self contradictory over the problem of evil, and were decisively checked by Plantinga. So, I think some rethinking is in order. KF
PS, I took a little time to look at what I could see from Slagle. I find some rather familiar concerns that I think, for cause and on bitter experience of my homeland, are of relevance:
Now these are opening remarks for a book that will doubtless explore details, but they have a point. And the point extends to many other cases. Perhaps the best example is the way the story of six blind men and an elephant is often used by relativists to discredit objectivity, while implicitly the narrator implies his or her own objectivity.
The real solution is to be aware of the issues, recognise that when worldview influenced issues are on the table, self referentiality is almost inescapable, and seek to avoid self referential incoherence.
Easier said than done.
PM1@
Again, Slagle’s skyhook against naturalism:
In his argument above Slagle claims that naturalism does not allow for a very specific type of teleology, namely the one aimed at “the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth.” So, he is not saying that all naturalistic processes are devoid of teleology, instead, his argument is based on the idea that a specific teleology is missing in all naturalistic processes. A very specific teleology that is required for truth. He argues that “… truth must be the ultimate goal or purpose of the mental processes that produce and sustain a belief. Truth must be the final cause of the belief.”
You seem to interpret his argument as based on the idea that naturalism lacks teleology completely and in #185 you link to papers on ‘biological organization’, ‘self-organizing processes’, and ‘systems embodying an orientation towards their own beneficial ends.’
Those papers are not at all about the specific teleology that Slagle refers to in his argument. If you think that this refutes Slagle’s argument, or is even relevant to his argument, then you are mistaken.
Origenes, your summary of Slagle highlights that there is a naturally evident purpose or due end of mind, right reason directed to truth, and by prudence, requiring adequate warrant. A rather familiar sounding cluster, on which we may superpose the insight that evils frustrate, wrench or side track what is good from its due end, which of course tends to chaos. With that on the table, we see yet again illustrated the first duties [including first principles] of reason and first built in law highlighted so long ago by Cicero. The very duties, that are so powerfully pervasive, branch on which we sit first principles that those who try to object invariably . . . readily observably (as has been pointed out here for some time now) . . . appeal to same to gain persuasive traction. This, too is of course an aspect of the self referentiality that comes up when we argue about core difficult questions, i.e. philosophy. For epistemology, we are knowers; for logic, we are reasoners; for metaphysics including logic of being, we are beings in a going concern world; for morality and ethics, we are morally governed, contingent, rational beings who require adequate cause (one that does not lead to or invite inference of grand, self discrediting delusion); for aesthetics, we are moved by beauty and beauty reminds us that ugliness is not all there is; for politics, governance and law, we are reminded of neighbour and justice. And more. It is reasonable to expect that our arguments will not draw a circle around reasoning that undermines reasoning, for we then are caught in our own circle of self defeat. KF
PS, for over a decade I have pointed to the path of soundness. Agree with Josiah Royce, Elton Trueblood et al, that error exists, proposition E. Further agree, that this claim is undeniable on pain of immediate absurdity: to try to deny E, ~E, means it is error to assert E, oops. From this, recognise that E is a case in point of readily knowable, self evident, certain, reliable, objective truth, so objective truth that is knowable exists. Any species of worldview that tries to deny objective truth fails. Their name is legion. This gives us a base on which we may build.
PPS, indeed, for any reasonable general subject G, we may see that the denial of objective truth is a truth claim regarding G and therefore refutes itself. This implies there is knowable truth for any reasonably distinct identifiable subject, not excepting morality. Indeed, the first objective truth is this one. Beyond it, the extent of known truth may be meagre indeed [which would be a case of Rumsfeld’s known unknowns], but we cannot soundly deny that bare fact.
PPPS, that systems and structures of the world of life are acknowledged to involve many systems with naturally evident ends, systems that so often exhibit copious Orgel-Wicken functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information manifested in the latter’s wiring diagrams, is of course a strong sign that they came about by the only actually observable [trillions of cases, no exceptions], needle in haystack search plausible cause for FSCO/I, design.
Kairosfocus,
That was a lot of verbiage, but none of it actually addresses the key point being raised over at TSZ.
You write:
The issue isn’t whether anyone has ever profited from being dishonest. Obviously, they have. The problem is your categorical assertion that “without the eternal reckoning, it is simply not the case that truth telling is to one’s advantage, short or long term.”
Upon a moment’s reflection, an intelligent person can bring to mind instances where truth-telling is decidedly advantageous, even in the here-and-now. You claim that such instances do not exist.
Imagine you have a dear, longtime friend you wish to keep. Do you truly see no personal advantage in being honest with that person instead of lying through your teeth?
KF@
As an aside, I note that ‘truth exists’ can also not be denied. To try to deny T, ~T, means it is true to that ~T, which means T, oops.
About the base on which we may build, I suggest we invite the free rational person. Allow him to take his rightful place at the base of philosophy, so we can continually monitor his ‘health’ while building our worldview. In my view that is the correct way to avoid being “caught in our own circle of self-defeat” as you call it.
90% of the things you say in your post I can gladly agree with. Part of the other 10% involves the term ‘objective.’ We had a discussion about its meaning and implications a few years ago. Perhaps another day.
F/N: As I noted there is a quantum eternity theorem claim, that needs to meet the Fourier eternity theorem, which is absolutely universal for any pulse or repeating waveform of consequence. It gets even more interesting, as we build the cathode ray oscilloscope, spectrum analyser, signal source, put together and set up, voila, we see the wave or pulse, the spectrum of sinusoids and note that any sinusoid is by mathematical definition endless in past and future. So, pure tones, pulses, blends all trace to that. We get to a choice, utter determinism theorem so anything in time is set from eternity to eternity, or is produced through circular eternal retrocausation with feed forward eternal cause too. Let’s call this, instant, transtemporal cause. What fun! We have proved everything. Not. We need to exert common sense about the difference between abstract logic model worlds and empirical actuality. KF
@192
Well, as Alice cried, “curiouser and curiouser!”
I apologize for asking you to do the work here, when I really should just read the book for myself. But what you say is so baffling to me!
It seems to me that the consequent, “any given belief would be produced and sustained by processes that do not have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth”, is true regardless of whether or not naturalism is true.
That is, regardless of whether naturalism is true or not, people can and do believe lots of different things for lots of different reasons, and not all of those reasons can bear critical scrutiny. People can believe things because of how they were raised, because of features of their social environment, because of the information they absorb from the world around them, etc.
What we want, of course, is a method of inquiry: a way of figuring out which beliefs we ought to accept and which ones we ought to reject. The goal of that inquiry is true beliefs. But truth is a goal of inquiry, not a goal of the processes that produced that morass of beliefs in the first place.
To say that truth is the final end of inquiry is to say, with C. S. Peirce, that the truth is what the community of inquirers is fated to believe, were inquiry to go on for as long as possible. Jay Rosenberg (no relation to Alex, I don’t think) defended a similar view under the label “convergent realism”: we make progress in science to the extent that the succession of scientific theories is an asymptotic approximation to the real.
I think truth as the norm of inquiry, as understood by Peirce and Rosenberg, is basically right: we aim at true beliefs, and we inquire into the reasons for our beliefs in order to find out which ones are true.
Given that context, would Slagle say that the Peirce/Rosenberg view is just not the right way of understanding aletheic teleology? Or would he perhaps agree with Peirce about truth as the goal of inquiry, but argue that naturalism cannot account for it?
PM1@ 197
What makes you say that? Utter nonsense.
So, because some beliefs do not bear critical scrutiny, it follows that “any given belief” is produced by “processes that do not have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth.” That does not follow at all.
Your reasonings have no bearing on Slagle’s argument. You need to address the following claim: if naturalism is true, then there are no processes that have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth.
“If naturalism is true, then there are no processes that have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth.”
Well, if naturalism is true, there are no ultimate goals or purposes, period. I think naturalists are OK with proximate goals and purposes that arise from our existence as organisms.
Even for some non-naturalists (me), we may live in a universe that arose from some non-naturalistic source and accounts for both the physical world and the nature of consciousness but nevertheless provides no ultimate goals or purposes. The universe just exists as it is, and things within it move along according to their nature. No ultimate goals or purposes necessary.
Kairosfocus: s, the sinusoids involved are eternal in past and future, any observation of a sinusoid composed signal, together with its spectrum can be taken as proof that from eternity past it was pre-programmed that at some t0, a CRO and Spectrum Analyser — let’s go old fashioned analogue, dynamic-stochastic so there is no escape through it is all an algorithmic calculation — in a certain setup would happen, and then a trace on each screen would be seen [Fourier here, too] and the lot would be turned off at t1 etc.
Yes, that is one, very long and convoluted sentence.
Where, in effect, we can say that a non repetitive pulse of any shape, is mathematically equivalent to a periodic waveform of infinite period, leading to the continuous spectrum.
If it’s non-repetitive then, yes, you could still break it down into a linear combination of sines or cosines but the breakdown would only be valid for the interval the pulse was defined over. Let’s say an instrument played one note for 2 seconds. You could still use Fourier analysis to see how that note breaks down but the fact that you’re using pieces of infinitely defined functions is not important.
Where, that means the observation that for an observed sinusoid for a span t0 to t1, there is actually a band rather than a line on the spectrum analyser does not evade the issue but reinforces it. This is of course Laplace’s demon on steroids. We can inject noise, it makes no practical difference. Does this force dynamic stochastic dynamism as conclusion, with the implied collapse of credibility of mind?
I have no idea what point is being made here.
Indeed, proof by self contradiction of an alternative assertion is a commonplace of argument, not least in Mathematics.
No one says “proof by self contradiction”; the phrase is “proof by contradiction”. I’ve used that technique many times.
Notice, too, the fate of Set Theory 1.0, often illustrated by the Barber paradox, which led to modern set theory, e.g. ZFC.
ZFC = Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory + Axiom of Choice which (quoting Wikipedia):
Note that their formulation was devised to deal with paradoxes, NOT contradictions. There’s a difference.
As I noted there is a quantum eternity theorem claim, that needs to meet the Fourier eternity theorem, which is absolutely universal for any pulse or repeating waveform of consequence.
Gibberish. There is no “quantum eternity theorem” or “Fourier eternity theorem”. You can’t just throw in words to the titles of of well known results or concepts because you think it makes sense.
We get to a choice, utter determinism theorem so anything in time is set from eternity to eternity, or is produced through circular eternal retrocausation with feed forward eternal cause too.
No, no one actually thinks that or infers that philosophical conclusion. Everyone knows when you are using Fourier analysis you are not supposing any kind of actual, physical eternity. That is just a straw man which you conveniently knock down a sentence or two later.
Stop bending and twisting mathematical procedures and results in some attempt to make them more theological than they are. They are abstract concepts some of which have terribly useful applications in the real, limited world. And everyone already knows that.
@198
Maybe I phrased things badly. I was only trying to draw distinction between the processes that produce beliefs and the standards by which we determine which beliefs are justified or true.
When I ask someone, “why do you think that?” I’m not asking “what social conditions caused you to form that belief?”, I’m asking “what reasons do you have for considering that belief to be justified and true, to the extent that you do?”
So it makes sense to me to say that truth is the goal of the process of inquiring into which beliefs we ought to accept, but it makes much less to me to say that truth is the goal of the process that produces beliefs in the first place.
But that premise is just so baffling to me. I’m sure that Slagle has an argument for it, and I feel I’ve taken sufficient advantage of your time so far that I don’t wish to impose further. But on the face of it, that premise just looks bizarre to me. It’s not something I would have gotten from my reading of Churchland, Rorty, Dennett, or other contemporary naturalists, and it strikes me as not merely wrong but obviously wrong. Clearly I need to read Slagle for myself in order to figure out what the argument is supposed to be for this claim!
VL @199
Naturalists are not OK with that, because (according to Slagle) that would mean that no one can hold naturalism to be a true belief.
Slagle’s argument (see #181) put differently:
1.) In order for us to hold that a belief is true, it must be produced by a process that has the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth.
2.) If naturalism is true, then no process that has the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth exists.
3.) If naturalism is true every belief is produced by a process that does not have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth.
4.) Naturalism is a belief
Therefore, from 1.), 3.), and 4.)
5.) If naturalism is true, we cannot hold that naturalism is a true belief.
In re: 202
Consider the following line of thought:
Suppose we were to rewrite (1) as
would you or Slagle accept that as an alternative to (1)? If not, why not?
I really struggle to see how that is incompatible with naturalism!
Thanks Origenes at 202. I saved your argument right under my Nancy Pearcey reference,
Moreover, as if that was not bad enough, the Darwinist is also forced to believe that his perceptions of reality are not trustworthy
Our perceptions of reality are not trustworthy? Those who believe that should not be allowed to drive.
PM1@ 203, Bornagain77@
I take it that by “a social practice” you mean scientific experiment.
I don’t think Slagle would accept that. He writes:
Your question is most likely addressed specifically somewhere in his book. I expect him to argue that every scientific test is necessarily based on beliefs that, like all beliefs under naturalism, we have good reason to distrust.
If naturalism is true, we have good reason to distrust all beliefs—including the belief in naturalism. We are entrapped in a circle of self-defeat from which there is no escape.
Why did this happen? Naturalism does not provide enough space for a free rational person.
– – – – –
Bornagain77 @204
Highly relevant. Nancy Pearcey essentially makes the same argument as Slagle.
Bornagain77: Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so.
Well, mathematicians have done pretty well relying on rationality with ZERO appeal to any greater being. There is no actual mathematical theorem which requires a deity as part of its proof. Mathematics requires no philosophy; theists and non-theists are welcome and capable of producing good mathematics. AND every mathematician I have known has been in the field because they find it fascinating NOT because they feel driven to discover God’s thoughts. NO ONE tries to find something like the quadratic formula because they love God. It just doesn’t happen.
Modern scientists have recognised that it’s possible (and sometimes easy) for a particular researcher or experimentalist to make a logical or experimental error which is why the system of peer review was introduced and also why some scientists have spent time trying to reproduce results they doubt. The point being: there is no need to invoke a philosophical stance when ‘doing’ science. If your result is reproducible and observer independent then you probably have something. You don’t even need to be a materialist; you just need to be able to be careful and rigorous and honest. What you choose to explore may depend on some of your pre-held beliefs but that doesn’t mean that when you check them out you can’t be objective and clear. And, if you’re not, someone will, eventually, cry foul. Because all scientific knowledge is provisional, i.e. subject to revision. It happens every day.
Unlike mathematics which has no need for such things. There is peer review but mostly before someone even submits a mathematical research paper they will have double and triple checked their own work and, most likely, shown it to a colleague especially if the result is surprising or unexpected. That’s why it took Andrew Weil years and years to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem; the problem was complicated and he knew if he claimed victory and was wrong he’d be a laughing stock.
JVL, you get the Fourier integral by in effect extending the period to infinity for a repetitive wave form. Second, I emphasised the contradiction as self, flowing from the alternative assertion; its consequences lead to incoherence so it is rejected. I suggest, yes, paradoxes are subtly different from blatant contradictions, but are essentially the same. Taking Russell’s barber paradox, subset A, men in the village who shave themselves, subset B, those shaved by our barber, there being no men not shaved, so every man shaves himself or else — X-OR — is shaved by the Barber, b0. Now who shaves b0? The contradiction is implicit on exhausting the alternatives posed, whether b0 shaves himself or not, there is a contradiction, an irreconcilable dilemma where one can neither go between the horns nor pose a counter dilemma. Next, there is a context you have overlooked: I was replying to a claimed quantum eternity theorem by Carroll responded to by Wall, through posing a comparable case on Fourier series . . . which applies to any pulse or periodic signal, once certain odd conditions are met; thus to both classical and quantum cases. The point was not in the theorems (though it is interesting that Fourier helps us see an example of claimed retrocausation as a thought exercise) but to recognise that mathematical models sometimes cannot be pressed too far or have to be used with common sense. Above I gave the Newtonian particle as a similar entity, being a point mass implying transfinite density; usually addressed as oh that’s an ideal that works well enough. There are quite a few workarounds out there. And, when you say no, no one holds to eternal determinism or retrocausation because of Fourier’s sinusoids, why, yes of course. That was actually my exact point, one must hold physical claims to an empirical standard informed by common sense rather than flashing mathematical oddities as though they were decisive proofs. In this case, thermodynamics is always the king in physical claims. This points to a beginning and to finitely distant future heat death. Where, BTW, thermodynamics lurks underneath cosmological clocks used to give cosmos level timelines. KF
PM1, social practice, notoriously, is a matter of power not truth seeking. No, we the new lab/doctor coat clad magisterium impose our gold standard does not work. As, may be emerging on the recent pandemic. KF
Kairosfocus: you get the Fourier integral by in effect extending the period to infinity for a repetitive wave form.
Fourier integral operators have to do with Fourier transforms NOT Fourier analysis.
Second, I emphasised the contradiction as self, flowing from the alternative assertion; its consequences lead to incoherence so it is rejected.
Everyone knows it’s just a model which is only applicable over the interval the phenomena is observed NOT out to infinity. NO ONE says: gee, look, it would be a contradiction to apply this out forever. Straw man.
I suggest, yes, paradoxes are subtly different from blatant contradictions, but are essentially the same
Blatant? What does blatant have to do with mathematics? NO mathematician uses paradox and contradiction interchangeably. Why can’t you use standard terms in the standard ways?
Taking Russell’s barber paradox, subset A, men in the village who shave themselves, subset B, those shaved by our barber, there being no men not shaved, so every man shaves himself or else — X-OR — is shaved by the Barber, b0. Now who shaves b0? The contradiction is implicit on exhausting the alternatives posed, whether b0 shaves himself or not, there is a contradiction, an irreconcilable dilemma where one can neither go between the horns nor pose a counter dilemma.
Condescending. I know the barber PARADOX. The contradiction comes from assuming one of the cases which IS NOT the same as the scenario which is the paradox.
I was replying to a claimed quantum eternity theorem by Carroll responded to by Wall, through posing a comparable case on Fourier series . . . which applies to any pulse or periodic signal, once certain odd conditions are met; thus to both classical and quantum cases.
What ‘quantum eternity theorem’? Physics doesn’t have theorems. ‘Certain odd conditions’? What? All mathematical results depend on certain conditions being met.
The point was not in the theorems (though it is interesting that Fourier helps us see an example of claimed retrocausation as a thought exercise) but to recognise that mathematical models sometimes cannot be pressed too far or have to be used with common sense.
Everyone knows that! Straw man! Also: retrocausation is not a word.
And, when you say no, no one holds to eternal determinism or retrocausation because of Fourier’s sinusoids, why, yes of course.
It takes you several paragraphs or sentences that which you could express in one carefully chosen phrase. “Just like no one assumes that using Fourier analysis to analyse a ‘short’ signal or sound implies that signal or sound can be extended to infinity, we must be aware of the limitations and restrictions when modelling real world phenomena with mathematics.” Boom, done.
And, along the way you say things that aren’t true or aren’t standard usage or are confusing.
JVL holds that the applicability of mathematics to the universe is not to be considered a ‘miracle’. i.e. it is the typical ‘nothing to see here’ response of atheists to anything that contradicts their worldview.
Yet, as has been pointed out to JVL previously, both Einstein and Wigner disagree with JVL’s personal opinion.
Specifically, Eugene Wigner, (who’s insights into quantum mechanics continue to drive breakthroughs in quantum mechanics; per A. Zeilinger), and Albert Einstein, who needs no introduction, are both on record as to regarding it as a ‘miracle’ that math should even be applicable to the universe. Moreover, Wigner questioned Darwinism’s ability to produce our “reasoning power” in his process of calling it a miracle, and Einstein even went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in his process of calling it a miracle.
Of related note, the Christian founders of modern science, (via Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology), believed that any mathematics that might describe this universe were “God’s thoughts”.
Of supplemental note:
Verse and quote:
Bornagan77: holds that the applicability of mathematics to the universe is not to be considered a ‘miracle’. i.e. it is the typical ‘nothing to see here’ response of atheists to anything that contradicts their worldview.
That’s not what I said at all!! And if you’re trying to guess something I hold to be true but didn’t express on this thread or are referring to something I said someplace else then you really need to reference that instead of just making off-topic comments.
You’re continual misrepresentation of what people have actually said (and can easily be checked by others) is either deliberate or inadvertent. Which means you are either a knave or a fool. Which is it?
AND you completely dodged the point I did make which was that mathematicians have utilised logic without the need to resort to theology since before Christ was born. Why don’t you discuss that instead of trying to change the subject?
JVL at 207,
With all due respect, just because you know a few people, it does not mean they represent an entire group. Scientists who are nuns working on potential cancer treatments and that sort of thing. I suspect there are a few Christians among mathematicians as well.
Another failing of the internet in general is the assumption that “My group is just like everybody else.” No. It’s not. I see it on a World War II forum I contribute to. I’m tempted to laugh when some real/not real – it’s hard to know – expert says, “That’s common knowledge.” Common to who? You? You AND your buddies. I certainly didn’t know that and I’ve been posting here for over 17 years.
So JVL, now you’ve changed your mind and hold that it is a ‘miracle’ that the applicability of mathematics to the universe is a miracle? 🙂
Anyways, Darwinian atheists simply are at a complete loss to explain, number 1, why the, supposedly, purely material mind of man can comprehend the immaterial realm of mathematics in the first place, and number 2, why this ‘abstract’ immaterial realm of mathematics should even be applicable to the material universe.
Although atheist try to play this ‘miracle’ off (as JVL is currently trying to do), It certainly doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to see that this is devastating to Darwinian materialism.
Of note, although the atheist is at a complete loss to explain any of this, the Christian theist readily expects the universe to be rational and for the minds of men to have the capacity to grasp that rationality, i.e. (1) Intelligibility
First, the (Christian) founders of modern science assumed the intelligibility of nature. They believed that nature had been designed by the mind of a rational God, the same God who made the rational minds of human beings. These thinkers assumed that if they used their minds to carefully study nature, they could understand the order and design that God had placed in the world.,,,
JVL, we got there by precisely that route way back when, an approach that appeals to physical scientists, the logic of an infinite period should be clear. And in context I am responding to someone who took something out to infinite time so putting a case alongside will help clarify, with all due respect I think the obvious hostility of your remarks may be impeding seeing the context. Where, take fourier series as the simplest start point, t-domain sinusoids definitely, mathematically extend without limit to past and future. That’s enough to bring out the point. Blatant, or straightforward explicit, glaring, outright contradictions, as I showed for how the Barber paradox leads to a dilemma of contradictions. I, for cause find your dismissive “condescending” a tad ironic when compared with your own tone. Where, given that you wished to mark paradox different from contradiction I showed the connexion, which does reasonably require or at least permit, a slight review to substantiate. Next, “theorems” are somewhat of a commonplace in theoretical physics and Carroll has indeed proposed such in discussions as is raised above, in a parallel thread and onward links. That “everybody knows” serves to further show my point, thanks for the inadvertent supportive point; no, it is not a strawman when you are addressing a case in point. KF
Relatd: With all due respect, just because you know a few people, it does not mean they represent an entire group. Scientists who are nuns working on potential cancer treatments and that sort of thing. I suspect there are a few Christians among mathematicians as well.
Right, okay, you tell me a mathematician you know who thinks that divine intercession makes their work possible.
Another failing of the internet in general is the assumption that “My group is just like everybody else.” No. It’s not. I see it on a World War II forum I contribute to. I’m tempted to laugh when some real/not real – it’s hard to know – expert says, “That’s common knowledge.” Common to who? You? You AND your buddies. I certainly didn’t know that and I’ve been posting here for over 17 years.
And yet, isn’t it just what the theological fans do here; post things that they think are obviously and clearly true because . . . . some reason which they, personally find compelling.
I get that you have read The Bible and that you, personally, find it compelling and meaningful and truthful and, maybe, all you need to guide you in your life. I get that. But others don’t feel that way. And we all have to learn how to get on with each other and come to some common, workable agreements about things like crime and punishment, same-sex marriage, women’s participation in sports, trans rights, etc. I’m happy to have a real debate about those things and I’m happy to try and find a compromise that, hopefully, we can all live with. What I do not understand is some peoples’ dogmatic and completely uncompromising views.
Bornagain77: So JVL, now you’ve changed your mind and hold that it is a ‘miracle’ that the applicability of mathematics to the universe is a miracle? ?
Since you clearly are intentionally not even reading what I have written I think it’s time to just ignore you and your quote-mined diatribes, some of which (I have pointed out in the past) are out-dated (dead links) and contrary to what you think they are saying.
But, again, what I pointed out was that mathematicians had been following rational thought since way before Christ was even born. Some are atheists, some are theological, some are pagans. Math gets done despite anyone’s theological leanings. Because, guess what, you can reason and think without any kind of deistic stance. I know you don’t like that and that’s why you are not addressing it. But it is true. Your lack of mathematical knowledge limits your understanding of what I am saying. If you were honest you would admit that. But you’re not honest (knave) and you won’t admit that.
Goodbye.
Kairosfocus: we got there by precisely that route way back when, an approach that appeals to physical scientists, the logic of an infinite period should be clear.
Tell me someone who interpreted things the same way you do? Show me one mathematician or physicist who believed your straw man idea.
And in context I am responding to someone who took something out to infinite time so putting a case alongside will help clarify, with all due respect I think the obvious hostility of your remarks may be impeding seeing the context.
I think you misinterpreted statements owing to your biases.
Where, take fourier series as the simplest start point, t-domain sinusoids definitely, mathematically extend without limit to past and future. That’s enough to bring out the point.
There is no ‘point’. Anyone who works with applications of mathematics to the real world already knows and understands the limits of the application. You created a straw man which no one actually supports.
Oh, and by the way, you did mix up Fourier transforms with Fourier analysis. Didn’t you? Why can’t you admit that?
Blatant, or straightforward explicit, glaring, outright contradictions, as I showed for how the Barber paradox leads to a dilemma of contradictions.
AND, guess what . . . mathematics came up with a solution, it came up with a modified version of set theory which is now accepted as canon and one of the bases of mathematics. So, what is your point?
I, for cause find your dismissive “condescending” a tad ironic when compared with your own tone.
Oh please! You always, always, go into some convoluted explanation of some aspect of mathematics which you really should know by now I do understand and which I myself would assume that others understand or could look up. You preach instead of discuss. All the time.
Where, given that you wished to mark paradox different from contradiction I showed the connexion, which does reasonably require or at least permit, a slight review to substantiate.
There are not the same thing. If you think they are then present your case with sound arguments and examples and references. I’ll wait.
Next, “theorems” are somewhat of a commonplace in theoretical physics and Carroll has indeed proposed such in discussions as is raised above, in a parallel thread and onward links.
No, no, no. Only mathematics has theorems. You are just making things up. Use terms as they are commonly used; don’t make stuff up.
That “everybody knows” serves to further show my point, thanks for the inadvertent supportive point; no, it is not a strawman when you are addressing a case in point.
You are clearly not a mathematician. Or a physicist. You have taken some classes in those fields, maybe even more that Calculus or a bit of modern physics. But you clearly have not, actually, worked in either of those fields. Lots of the people on this forum might be impressed by your math-y statements but that doesn’t make them right or even sensible. Especially when you start slinging your theology.
Show me a math textbook or theorem which references or requires a theological view. Show me a physics textbook or research paper which references or requires a theological view. Those are rhetorical questions, clearly, because you won’t be able to provide any examples which say anything about God or a designer. Those concepts are not necessary, not required, not important when ‘doing’ math or physics. Or chemistry. Or a lot of other hard sciences. The only people, for the most part, who think theology is required are non-scientific believers. People who are not actually scientists, who don’t do research, who don’t publish, who aren’t qualified to teach in an accredited institution. In fact, mostly, the only people who insist on theology being part of science are some anonymous commenters on blogs like this. People who won’t even admit to who they are.
JVL at 217,
Angry little atheist aren’t we Mr JVL? ,,, 🙂
You keep claiming that “mathematicians had been following rational thought since way before Christ was even born” as if that somehow explains why we are capable of rational thought.
FYI JVL, pointing to the thing that needs explaining, does not explain its origin. Not even close.
Darwinism is a simply a non-starter as to explaining the origin of rational thought. In fact, In 2014 an impressive who’s who list of leading ‘Darwinian’ experts authored a paper in which they stated that they have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”
Those are YOUR people JVL. They are the ones saying you have no explanation for the origin of
“linguistic computations and representations”, i.e. for rational thought. Perhaps you should go vent a little of your irrational anger towards them instead of venting it towards people here on UD?
JVL at 216,
“…things like crime and punishment, same-sex marriage, women’s participation in sports, trans rights, etc. I’m happy to have a real debate about those things and I’m happy to try and find a compromise that, hopefully, we can all live with. What I do not understand is some peoples’ dogmatic and completely uncompromising views.”
Well, unless you personally know the reasoning of these ‘uncompromising’ people then no discussion is possible.
So-called “rights” are often not that at all. They are permissions.
“Trans Rights.” A boy tells mom and dad he feels like a girl and he heard he can transition. Some teachers at schools are willing to stand between mom and dad when they say no, and accommodate the transition in secret. They have no legal standing to do this.
Sports. I worked in hospital for 9 years. Men and women have different skeletal structures. In women, at the hips, a pelvic tilt, and other in-born structural details. A ‘trans woman’ is a man. End of story.
@206
No, scientific practices (which include experiments but aren’t limited to them) are a type of social practice. But I was thinking about a whole vast array of reason-giving social practices, which can include the everyday (“why are you going back home?” “because I forgot to take out the garbage”), legal rulings, logical inference, mathematical reasoning, etc.
Well, this is more a question for Slagle than for you (or anyone else here) but I still just do not understand the claim that “Naturalism does not provide enough space for a free rational person”. My gut-response is “of course it does, what are you talking about??”
I’m still baffled at this claim that naturalism gives us a reason to distrust all beliefs. That just seems so bonkers to me, I’m unsure as how one could even begin to argue for it.
To be sure, I am aware that Plantinga has some arguments for this claim, but I consider the EAAN to have been fully refuted by arguments made by Churchland and Millikan. So I hope that Slagle’s argument does not rest upon the EAAN!
o Origenes at 202:
When I wrote, “Well, if naturalism is true, there are no ultimate goals or purposes, period. I think naturalists are OK with proximate goals and purposes that arise from our existence as organisms.”, Origenes replied,
As PM wrote at 182, “We can call that an external criticism: criticizing naturalism by standards that the naturalist need not accept.”
A non-ultimatist (to coin a phrase: either a naturalist or a non-naturalist such as myself who doesn’t believe that these ultimate goals, purposes, and truths exist) would say that all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another. We are not claiming that it is True (in the ultimate sense) that there are no ultimate goals etc., but instead that we think it much more likely true than not, and so we adopt that as a chosen philosophical position, taking into account all the evidence that we have available to us.
It is wrong to consider it a relevant criticism of a non-ultimatist that their belief in non-ultimaticity is not ultimate. You may consider us wrong (which you do), but you can’t criticize our beliefs solely on the fact that they contradict your ideas of how things are. This does not make non-ultimaticism internally or self-referentially contradictory, it just makes it in opposition to a different perspective that thinks these ultimates exist.
,,, “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” save, of course, for the belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another”.
VL @
What is PM1 trying to convey with the term ‘external criticism’? Is being ‘external’ perhaps a convenient reason to discard certain criticism? If not, PM1 is, of course, free to argue that naturalism allows for teleological processes that have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth, or that truth does not matter, or whatever he wants. As an aside, your claim that “if naturalism is true, there are no ultimate goals or purposes, period”, is not supportive of such an effort.
Are you absolutely sure that it is wrong for me to do so? Or do you hold that as a tentative belief?
I would say that a claim like “truth does not exist” is self-defeating. The same with “all our beliefs are tentative.” BTW do you hold the belief that 2 + 2 = 4 ‘tentatively’? And do you hold ‘tentatively’ the belief that you exist? Is that a computer screen in front of you?
But you tell me that you don’t claim that non-ultimatism is True, but, instead “likely true”, and that I should not criticize it. Ok.
Is that what I’m doing? I flatter myself believing that I criticize ideas if I spot internal incoherence.
No? Are you sure? Or do you hold that as a tentative belief?
That too.
No, BA. That’s a stupid and/or intellectually dishonest rejoinder, one and obviously, if you paid any attention to what I was saying, you would know that is not something I am saying or claiming. My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another, one I think is much more likely to be true than not, taking into account all the evidence that we have available to us, and thus a belief that I choose to hold.
Ba77 at 223,
They act as if they don’t see the problem.
,,, “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” save, of course, for the belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another”.
I watched a “comedian” tell his audience to question everything. OK, let’s start with you and what you just said.
Viola Lee
What does the fact that some beliefs are more likely true than others tell you? Can you really doubt each and every belief you have?
Can you doubt that you exist? Can you doubt 2 + 2 = 4? Can you doubt that you sometimes have doubts? Can you doubt that error exists?
Is it really possible for you to hold that all beliefs “are tentative to some degree”?
“My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,”
So, in other words, your feet are planted firmly in midair? 🙂
Unbeknownst to you, you are yet another victim of Darwin’s corrosive effect on education
Ba77,
I went to Catholic high school. The nuns told us that if we thought this was hard, just wait till you get to college. I got to college, learned I could set my own schedule and also learned that college had a lot of hedonism in the background thanks to the sexual revolution.
You may find the following to be of interest:
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/land-o-lakes-statement-caused-devastation-50-years/
BA77 @288
That is a great quote and absolutely infuriating. Unlike most of you, I am not trained in mercifulness, so I will tell you like it is. What Pearcey succinctly describes is the rise of the numskulls. And in the meantime, they have turned society as a whole, the education system included, into an insane asylum run by patients.
As usual, I get the feeling that you folks are not really trying to understand another’s point of view, but here is a short reply:
1. I am certain about certain things that are logically true. I am certain that a bachelor is an unmarried man because that is the definition of bachelor. I am certain about the facts of math because those are part of a logical system where the definitions and rules for manipulation are clearly defined.
2. I have no reasonable doubts that there is a tree in my front yard. I trust my senses in regards to everyday perception. I could be wrong (brain in a vat) but I see no reason to even consider that, and there are many ways that I can test my belief, so that falls in the category of “virtually certain with no reason to spend any time of energy doubting, even though in theory I could be wrong.” I am virtually certain the earth is approximately spherical, although (like those people who doubt we went to the moon or people who think the earth is flat) I could be wrong, I suppose, but the chanvces are way to small to think about. I’m fairly certain the earth’s core is molten lead, but that is not from direct observation by anyone, so it has a slightly greater chance of being wrong, buyt in my opinion not much.
And so on about all sorts of empirical facts. Given that the topic of the discussion is about metaphysical matters such as ultimate purposes and goals I shouldn’t even have to go over all this.
Origenes, you write, “But you tell me that you don’t claim that non-ultimatism is True, but, instead “likely true”, and that I should not criticize it. Ok.”
This is why these discussions are so frustrating and unfruitful. I didn’t say you couldn’t criticize my positions. I said something much more specific. I said, “You may consider us wrong (which you do), but you can’t criticize our beliefs solely on the fact that they contradict your ideas of how things are…. This does not make non-ultimaticism internally or self-referentially contradictory, …”, to which you replied “I flatter myself believing that I criticize ideas if I spot internal incoherence.”
Well, I’ve explained the mistake I think you’re making, but I’m not going to spend just saying stuff again.
And last, you write, “No? Are you sure? Or do you hold that as a tentative belief?”
I’ve said over and over that I present my beliefs according to what I think that is best supported by evidence and logic. I could be wrong, and people might change my minds. As far as I can tell, the universe has no ultimate purpose. I’m not certain of that, but it is the belief I’ve chosen as the most reasonable to be a part of my philosophy. At some point, people have to make the choices that seem best to fit the situation, and that’s mine. That doesn’t mean I can’t search, and find, lots of things that are solidly true about the world, and others that are less certain, and so on.
Arrggghhh. This is useless, and I can’t figure out why I keep commenting. I will really try hard to go away now.
“My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,”
and yet,,
“I am certain about certain things that are logically true. ”
And you do not see this as a contradiction in your thinking?
Origenes, you may also appreciate this,
Verses:
VL@
Now I understand you better. You have, like most of us, several certain basic beliefs. Your non-ultimatism applies mainly to metaphysical beliefs. And here you hold tentatively the belief that the universe (life?) has no ultimate purpose.
May I ask why you believe that there is likely no ultimate purpose?
I see no evidence.
Bornagain77 writes:
There is no contradiction here.
BA77 @
Thx! The following quote made me laugh uncontrollably. Not sure why 🙂
VL @
If it turns out that the universe is fine-tuned for life, would that count as evidence for an ultimate purpose? If not, what would count as evidence?
No. The universe is fine-tuned for more than life. It’s fine-tuned for the existence of physics and chemistry and the resulting universe full of stars and galaxies and all the rest that is out there. That doesn’t mean there is a purpose for it, other than to just be what it is.
I have no idea what would count to me as evidence for ultimate purpose. I can’t imagine having access to whatever might be the source of a purpose for the universe even if there is one.
VL@
I take it that you also tentatively believe that there is no ultimate purpose for human beings. Would a near-death experience count as evidence for you? If it is all untrue, then a lot of cardiac patients are liars …
From WikI:
What does that have to do with ultimate purpose?
“It is wrong to consider it a relevant criticism of a non-ultimatist that their belief in non-ultimaticity is not ultimate.”
Huh?
“No. The universe is fine-tuned for more than life. It’s fine-tuned for the existence of physics and chemistry and the resulting universe full of stars and galaxies and all the rest that is out there. “
Of course it’s fine tuned for the existence of physics, chemistry, stars and galaxies otherwise we would not have life.
“Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?” Eric Metaxas
Vivid
The moon
“First of all, about 4.5 billion years ago the planet that eventually became Earth was very different from what it is now. To be accurate, it wasn’t yet Earth. Most of us haven’t heard about this because it was only recently understood. But the planet that became Earth was actually smaller than Earth. So it was a kind of proto-Earth that scientists usually refer to as Theia. But one day a few million years after the formation of this proto-Earth, something happened: A Mars-sized object just happened to hit Theia at just the perfect angle and at just the perfect speed. The object that collided with the proto-Earth also had precisely the right composition. This all happened very shortly after the formation of our solar system, and shortly after the formation of the proto-Earth as part of the solar system. But we know that if it had not happened—and happened precisely as it happened in every detail—we would not be here. It is another inescapably amazing “coincidence” to consider.
So what happened? As we have said it was the mysteriously perfect collision of two planet-sized spheres hurtling through infinity for millions of years “became Earth had been different in size or composition, we would not be here.
This is not science fiction. It is what science has rather recently come to understand. It seems miraculous, no matter what one’s view of the situation is. But science is not in the business of proclaiming anything miraculous, even if something seems miraculous. Science is simply in the business of finding out what happened. But science now knows enough to say that if any details of what happened had been even slightly different, we could not be here now. So what did happen? Many things.
First, as a result of this inconceivably powerful collision, the super thick atmosphere of the proto-Earth—Theia—exploded off into outer space, never to return. So the new planet—what we today call home—suddenly had a much, much thinner atmosphere. We know that the atmosphere on the proto-Earth was forty to a hundred times denser than the atmosphere afterward, and breathing it would have been like trying to breathe sand. So because of this extremely perfect collision, our planet instantly had a new atmosphere, one thin enough for sunlight to penetrate so that plants could grow, and[…]” “lourish on the newly formed Earth. To be clear, the size of our moon is outrageously large when compared to other moons in our solar system. But anything at all smaller would not have been sufficient to stabilize the wobble of our axis, as it has done ever since and is doing now. But science tells us that the moon’s stabilization of our axis is another unavoidable prerequisite for an environment where life could exist. For example, it enables us to have just the right seasonal variation, with seasons mild enough that the temperature does not fluctuate wildly, which would make life impossible. So this perfect collision just happened to happen, and the size of Earth and the size of the moon and the atmosphere and the axis of Earth were all magically and perfectly and suddenly established, so that we could eventually live here as we now do.
But because it is only recently that science has settled on all of this, most of us simply haven’t heard about it. Now that we do know it, however, we can add this breathtakingly perfect collision to the list of what appear to be outrageous coincidences”
Excerpt From
Is Atheism Dead?
Eric Metaxas
https://books.apple.com/us/book/is-atheism-dead/id1572686313
This material may be protected by copyright.
https://jesusquestion.com/miracle-moon-eric-metaxas-book-miracles/
Vivid
JVL, at this point it is pretty clear that you have inadvertently underscored the force of my point, imagining you were refuting what I had highlighted. It is quite clear that Carroll put up a claimed “Quantum Eternity Theorem,” I think c 2014 where I have a clip of some of his argument on such matters in 166 above, and that theorems are fairly commonplace in physics, contrary to your earlier assertion. As I recall for the moment, Bell Theorem in Quantum Physics, Louville;s theorem [in statistical mechanics topics], the Carnot theorem on maximum efficiency of a heat engine, the rather useful Buckingham Pi theorem for dimensional analysis of physical relationships, even the BVG theorem, roughly, on a finite past to expanding cosmos Carroll tried to counter. (A list by Wikipedia here will help clarify that in physics there are results that are indeed described as theorems; so, no the term theorem is not exclusively used by Mathematicians.) It is clear I responded to talking points above regarding a claimed eternal past result, for cause. Aron Wall, already linked, makes a different response. It is clear that Fourier analysis uses time domain sinusoids that are strictly past-eternal as a matter of Math, and that this similar case underscores a familiar enough matter where we need to anchor physics to the empirical and recognise that mathematical model worlds are not themselves physical, where at cosmological levels, thermodynamics is king. Indeed, on spectrum analysers, we have two in our heads, in our inner ears, using an array of vibrating hairs that respond to specific frequencies across the spectrum 20 – 20 kHz, both for sustained notes and transients. Yes, as I noted from the beginning, on finding contradictions, set theory was axiomatised, leading to ZFC; a point where you inadvertently underscore an earlier response I made BTW. The particular illustration has contradictions lurking on the horns of a dilemma, which justifies my point that it was self contradictory, paradox here is as I responded, strictly distinct from the contradictions proper, but going down the horns of the dilemma surfaces them. I simply note on the substantial point and the balance on merits. Which is, despite Carroll’s prestige [something appealed to above by another objector], that there is no established physics that leads to a mathematically necessary past eternal physical world and that we need to retain empirical and thermodynamic control on claims. KF
VL stated,
“My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,”
And then later VL stated
“I am certain about certain things that are logically true. ”
So I asked,
“And you do not see this as a contradiction in your thinking?”
FP throws his two cents in and states,
“There is no contradiction here.”
Sorry FP, but you and VL can’t have it both ways. You can’t hold a belief to be ‘certain’ and to also be ‘tentative’. For crying out loud, the definition of tentative is “NOT certain’.
In other words, despite FP’s denial to the contrary, VL’s claims are a direct contradiction in logic.
PM1, of course, as I noted earlier to you, social practices are too often driven by power not warrant and are inadequate. As for the challenges of evolutionary materialistic scientism, a first expansion of the relevant sense of naturalism, there are already enough examples on the table to establish that there are serious difficulties for grounding enough of responsible, rational freedom for minds and the arguments and conclusions of minds to be credible. In particular, Slager has outlined enough to give pause, such that there are sufficient cat out of bag remarks by spokesmen to give pause. In particular, we have reason to know that a computational substrate is a signal processing entity constrained by GIGO, with no higher credibility than the quality of its programming; such do not have rational, responsible freedom. Where, as we are on topics with a lot of self referentiality, it is clear that some pretty self undermining remarks have been put on the table, as cited. Those need to be answered and the relativism of largely power driven social and institutional processes undermines such an appeal. Scientism’s implication that science dominates or monopolises knowledge, in particular, is both self referentially incoherent [this is an epistemological claim] and fails to reckon adequately with power issues in relevant institutions. KF
BA77, you are right. On topics like this, self referentiality is almost impossible to avoid, which is part of why core hard questions are hard. What we need to do, is to try to avoid incoherence by making assertions that when referred to ourselves, undercut the point we were trying to make. I think a safe position is, error exists is undeniably true and self evident. This first establishes that some things are knowable as certainly true, instantly discrediting all sorts of relativistic notions. However, the truth is also humbling and we need first principles of reasoning to guard and guide us, being open to change our views on adequate evidence. KF
Well KF, for me, VL’s direct contradiction in logic is simply a small microcosm of the catastrophic epistemological failure that permeates the materialistic metaphysics of Darwinian evolution at large. (a materialistic metaphysics which dominates our colleges and public schools today)
In short, if God is not held to be real and true, (i.e. ‘certain’), then nothing else can be held to real and true, (i.e. certain’) for the Darwinian materialist.
First off, if God does not really exist as a real person, but is merely an illusion as Darwinian materialists hold, then we ourselves do not really exist as real persons, but our sense of self is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ that is somehow, inexplicably, generated by, and/or emergent from, the unconscious material particles of the brain.
The claim that consciousness, i.e. our sense of self, is a ‘neuronal illusion’, since it denies the objective reality of ‘self’, is, in a word, insane. As brain surgeon, and professor of brain surgery, Michael Egnor pointed out, “Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure.”
Moreover, the claim that consciousness, i.e. our sense of self, is a ‘neuronal illusion’, since it denies the objective reality of ‘self’, is also self refuting in the most fundamental way possible. This is because it claims that the one thing by which we judge everything else to either be real of illusory, i.e. consciousness, is itself an illusion.
As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
Moreover, the Darwinian materialist, besides being forced to claim that he himself is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’, is also forced to claim that he, as a neuronal illusion, is simultaneously having the illusion of free will.
As is made abundantly clear by the fact that Darwinists are forced to hold that they are ‘neuronal illusions’ who are simultaneously having the illusion of free will, rationality itself is completely lost in their denial of free will.
In short, if we do not have free will in some real and meaningful since, then rationality itself collapses, (and since science itself depends on rationality, then science itself also collapses along with it)
And as VL herself is giving evidence to in this very thread, the Darwinian materialist is also forced to believe that all his beliefs about reality are unreliable, untrustworthy, and/or are illusory. Or as VL put it, she holds all her beliefs to be ‘tentative’.
The Darwinian materialist is also forced to believe that all his perceptions of reality are also illusory, and/or ‘constructed representations’,
The Darwinian materialist, since he has no real time experimental evidence substantiating any of his grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution, is also forced to make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection,
And the Darwinian materialist is forced to make up these illusory “just so stories” so as to ‘explain away’ the overwhelming ‘appearance’ of design, (which is to say he is forced to make up these ‘just-so stories’ so as to explain away the overwhelming ‘illusion’ of design), that he himself is seeing in life
The Darwinian materialist also must make up illusory meaning and purposes for his life since the hopelessness inherent in atheistic nihilism is simply too much for anyone to bear,
The Darwinian materialist is also forced to hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God Who is the source for all real and objective moral standards and truths,
The Darwinian materialist is also forced to hold, since beauty itself cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, that beauty itself must be illusory. In fact, no less than Charles Darwin himself stated that “beauty in the eyes of man”,, “would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
Thus in conclusion, although the Darwinist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic and/or materialistic explanations, (i.e. methodological naturalism), over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinian materialists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed which is more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of Darwinian materialism, (i.e. methodological naturalism), has turned out to be.
Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheist himself turns out to be real in his materialistic worldview. Much less are beauty, meaning, and purposes for his life to be considered real in his naturalistic worldview.
To call such a worldview ‘impoverished’ is an understatement. It is a vile, putrid, and rotting philosophy which can’t even support rational thought in the first place, and which robs man of anything, and everything, that might give any semblance of real meaning and purpose to his life.
Thanks be to God that it is an utterly false worldview.
one of the more stupid statements ever on UD.
Something created the universe. That something must have immense intelligence and power. To then say it was done so incredibly precisely for no purpose is unbelievably illogical.
As always the lack of argument against ID is always the most interesting question. Thread after thread, it’s always the same. What better proof for ID.
VL@
I gathered that life after death is a prerequisite for the existence of an ultimate purpose for human beings. Perhaps I was being presumptuous. Perhaps you would also accept a naturalized version of ultimate purpose, such as ‘being fertilizer’?
“Perhaps you would also accept a naturalized version of ultimate purpose, such as ‘being fertilizer’?”
Reminds me of this comedy skit,
BA77 @248, 249
Thank you for compiling those baffling self-defeating statements.
Steven Pinker could not have produced the text above if he was aware of the self-referential implications. Somehow he does not realize that the text refers to himself also.
The problem of self-referentiality, or rather the failure to be aware of it, is widespread and cannot be unseen once seen. As Kairosfocus notes:
The problem of self-referentiality is not limited to claims about the non-existence of consciousness and/or rationality. And it is also not limited to our contemporaries. In particular, it seems to rear its ugly head among the skeptically inclined, such as Popper, Russell, and the like. A few years ago I compiled a long list of self-defeating Popper statements that had the common theme (paraphrasing): ‘There are no true statements.’
Why is it that so few point it out? I am not sure what to make of it.
Kairosfocus: theorems are fairly commonplace in physics, contrary to your earlier assertion. As I recall for the moment, Bell Theorem in Quantum Physics, Louville;s theorem [in statistical mechanics topics], the Carnot theorem on maximum efficiency of a heat engine, the rather useful Buckingham Pi theorem for dimensional analysis of physical relationships, even the BVG theorem, roughly, on a finite past to expanding cosmos Carroll tried to counter. (A list by Wikipedia here will help clarify that in physics there are results that are indeed described as theorems; so, no the term theorem is not exclusively used by Mathematicians.)
Okay, I will certainly concede that there are ‘theorems’ in physics (although they all look to be highly mathematical). Interestingly enough, one of the theorems on that Wikipedia list is The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen which:
Which sounds pretty weird to me. The discussion in the article is a bit beyond my pay-grade.
Also, it seems like Dr Carroll proposed a “Quantum Eternity Theorem” in a very off-the-cuff fashion and the idea, might in fact, just be similar to a known result.
From Did the Universe Begin? IV: Quantum Eternity Theorem: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog.....y-theorem/
First Dr Carroll’s comment:
But, according to the author of the page:
And
It all centres around whether or not the universe has zero energy. I’ll leave you to read the full article.
Oh, by the way, that page comes from Undivided Looking, a blog about Physics and Theology. From their About section:
So, not some materialistic site.
You were right about Physics theorems. I will change my stance on that issue.
Follow-up Self-referentiality #254
Jim Slagle describes the self-referentiality problem for those who claim that beliefs are produced by non-rational forces, (such as blind particles in the void):
With an almost painful accuracy, Slagle goes on to describe the self-referentiality problem for skeptics of rationality:
Bornagain77 writes:
BA77 obviously has a problem reading for comprehension. Try reading VL’s comment again but, this time, pay attention to the words being used rather than reacting viscerally because you disagree with her worldview.
I did read the words for context, and even read them charitably, not viscerally, as you have falsely accused me.
Again, there is a direct contradiction in logic in her two statements,
@224
I defined “external criticism” very carefully: a criticism is external if it is based on criteria to which someone is not committed. By contrast an internal criticism is a criticism based on premises to which someone is committed.
Slagle is attempting internal criticism because he is trying to show that naturalism is self-refuting: that the naturalist is committed to premises which undermine their own project.
From what I can tell, he is committed to a Plantinga-like account of how this is supposed to work. Plantinga claims that the naturalist is committed to the low or inscrutable likelihood that cognitive faculties are reliable, which should include their own, hence undermining the beliefs formed through those faculties, including naturalism.
My main objection is that it’s not really clear why, according to Plantinga, the naturalist is committed to the low or inscrutable likelihood of the reliability of our cognitive faculties. His argument in “Content and Natural Selection” depends on the assumption that we can conceive of a belief having different content but still having the same impact on behavior, hence we have no reason to believe that content can be a target of natural selection:
This argument is so terrible that it hurts me to spend time responding to it.
Here’s the crux of the problem: “It is exceedingly difficult to see, however, how they can enter that chain by virtue of their content”.
What is “difficult to see” depends on the stock of concepts one has at ones disposal. It was “difficult to see” how electricity and magnetism could have anything to do with each other before the work of Faraday and Maxwell: post Faraday and Maxwell, we find it difficult to see how the connection would have been difficult to see!
In this context, specifically, of course one cannot understand how content could affect behavior if one is unfamiliar with naturalized theories of content. But someone who does understand how content can be naturalized would not agree with Plantinga that it is at all “difficult to see” how content can affect behavior.
The naturalization of content is still being hotly debated in the philosophy of cognitive science, and yes, no one can be expected to know everything. But “Content and Natural Selection” was published in 2011, long after the first attempts were made to naturalize content by Dretske, Millikan, and Paul Churchland. By 2011, teleosemantics was a major area of interdisciplinary inquiry. Yet Plantinga writes as if it doesn’t exist. And that’s a real problem, because then his project fails as an internal criticism of naturalism.
This goes to my larger complaint with Plantinga (and perhaps with Slagle, though I haven’t read much of him yet): they purport to be engaged in an internal criticism of naturalism, but they haven’t really taken the time to understand what naturalists are committed to, and why.
We can see the same problem with this thought: “a given belief, it seems, would have had the same causal impact on behavior if it had had the same NP properties, but different content.”
Is that really so? We can imagine that the neurophysiological properties remain the same while the content changes. That would show at most that the relation between semantic content and neurophysiological properties is not a logically necessary truth. But that’s irrelevant, since no naturalist ever contended that it was.
What the naturalist needs to say is that, regardless of whatever is logically necessary or contingent, is a fact about how brains work in the actual world that variation in semantic content is a variation in neurophysiological properties. Plantinga ignores this perfectly obvious response because (but I tire of repeating himself) he does not really understand naturalism. Plantinga’s criticism of naturalism is based on a monumental act of self-deception; he does not really understand what he thinks he does.
By contrast, if teleosemantics is a promising route to naturalize content, and thereby show how semantic content is causally efficacious by virtue of being part of a biological system, then content can be a target of selection, and therefore a naturalist can happily say it is extremely probable that minds formed through natural selection really are generally reliable.
@256
I have no objection to this line of reasoning. But who exactly is the target here? Who is it who supposedly says “all beliefs are produced by non-rational forces”?
I can tell you this much: the Churchlands do not say this. Dennett does not say this. Neither do Dewey, Freud, or Marx say this, despite what Pearcey and Slagle insinuates.
(The only philosopher I know of who says anything like this, and who does draw out all of the skeptical conclusions, is Friedrich Nietzsche.)
“My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,”
“I am certain about certain things that are logically true. ”
This is a train wreck of ideas demolishing each other.
Andrew
Ba77 at 245,
I think you’re missing the overarching concept: ‘My beliefs are my beliefs and that’s that.’ Your attempt to add logic to the situation may not apply. Or someone is pulling your leg.
Ba77 at 248,
Someone should send the Dean of every university the following:
“If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure.” ‘
PM1, if someone is not committed to first principles and duties of reason, that is already decisive. And yes, that shows a problem with the approach you propose. KF
Erratum in my @259: I wrote that Plantinga ignores teleosemantics. That is in fact not the case: he considers both Dretske and Millikan as offering responses to the threat of “semantic epiphenomenalism”. He does not think that either theory can do the job — or more precisely, he thinks that teleosemantics could not ground metaphysical or mathematical beliefs. I think this is a misreading of the explanatory function of teleosemantics.
What the naturalist needs is a theory that connects the kinds of reliable feature-detecting representations that teleosemantics explains in ‘simple minds’ (bees or beavers) with the kinds of symbolically articulated, culturally scaffolded representations that we find in mathematics, philosophy, and science.
It’s at this point that the naturalist would need to look to work by Cecilia Hayes, Joseph Heinrich, or Ken Sterelny. The basic idea is that what needs to be explained is the evolution of human culture itself, since it is culture that makes the minds of human beings different from the minds of non-human animals.
@263
Wherever did you get the idea that the approach I’m proposing is not committed to “first principles and duties of reason”?
PyrrhoManiac1: Wherever did you get the idea that the approach I’m proposing is not committed to “first principles and duties of reason”?
‘Cause you came to a different conclusion from him. It’s not the journey, it’s the end.
PM1 264 “since it is culture that makes the minds of human beings different from the minds of non-human animals.”
And there you go, all we need to do to change a monkey mind into a human mind is to drop him into the proper ‘culture’, supposedly for an extended period of time.
But then again, something tells me that PM1 may be overlooking some small detail with his hypothesis in which he holds “it is culture that makes the minds of human beings different from the minds of non-human animals.”
Namely, the ‘small detail’ that “We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.”
Of related note:
It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’, not via brute force as is presupposed in Darwinian thought, but precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates
Of course, a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, and then defeated death itself on a cross.
And that just so happens to be precisely the proof that is claimed within Christianity.
PM1 at 264,
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
“The basic idea is that what needs to be explained is the evolution of human culture itself, since it is culture that makes the minds of human beings different from the minds of non-human animals.”
In the chicken or egg question, a mind that is human comes first, not culture. In the fictional story about ‘primitive’ man living in caves, humans could just grunt and point. Then there is the fictional story about humans living in trees until a change in the environment forced them to walk on land. How they got water prior to that is not explained. This does not include the idea that humans got ‘smarter’ as their brains got bigger.
Bornagain77: The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting.
Just curious; would you agree that humans are primates?
“would you agree that humans are primates?”
Is an ape or human asking?
Bornagain77: Is an ape or human asking?
I’ll assume you don’t think humans are primates even though you failed to directly answer a very simple question.
Since Primate is a human-defined classification (not necessarily related to descent or evolution) then what is your objection for having humans defined as primates? What part of the definition of primate do you think humans do not match?
Whatever JVL, you want to ignore the profound mental differences between apes and humans and exaggerate superficial physical similarities, so as to make it seem that humans are just highly evolved apes. That is precisely why I provided multiple lines of empirical evidence that ‘scientifically’ refute the Darwinian claim that humans evolved from apes.
Moreover, according to PM1’s ‘right culture’ hypothesis, it is theoretically possible that you are simply an ape that had the good fortune of being raised up in the right culture so as to develop a human mind. 🙂
According to PM1’s ‘right culture’ hypothesis, I have every right to ask, “Is an ape or human asking?”
It ain’t rocket science.
Bornagain77 writes:
Then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.
JVL at 271,
It’s definitely related to evolution.
“Primate;
“: any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by advanced development of binocular vision resulting in stereoscopic depth perception, specialization of the hands and feet for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres and that include humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (such as lemurs and tarsiers)”
Note: I can’t use my feet for grasping.
Ford Prefect, that may be your false personal opinion, but unfortunately for you, words have meaning. and anyone can read her words for themself,
Again, there is a direct contradiction in logic in her two statements,
Bornagain77: Whatever JVL, you want to ignore the profound mental differences between apes and humans and exaggerate superficial physical similarities, so as to make it seem that humans are just highly evolved apes.
Look, there is a morphological definition of Primate; do you think humans match that definition?
You are such a coward you can’t even answer such a simple question honestly.
You could say: yes, humans match that category but I disagree with the evolutionary explanation. But you can’t even do that.
Like I said, coward.
Relatd: I can’t use my feet for grasping.
I can pick up things with my feet. Anyway, in general, do you think humans match the morphological definition of primate?
FP at 273,
I have no idea how you reached your conclusion. Perhaps you can provide a more detailed explanation.
JVL at 277,
Not according to the definition I posted. There is no connection between humans and the animals listed.
Relatd: Not according to the definition I posted. There is no connection between humans and the animals listed.
So, humans do not have advanced development of binocular vision? Or enlarged cerebral hemispheres?
Well JVL, so you issued an ad hominem attack on me and called me a coward simply because I refused to play your silly game and admit to an obviously true point on classification?
And since you have become increasing abusive and angry towards me recently, do you think I ought to have admin settle the matter for us JVL? Or do you think I ought to let you continue with your ad hominem attacks against me? Seeing that we are humans, not apes, we do have rules of behavior you know.
Please try to be better in your dialogue with me. You have been given fair warning.
JVL at 280,
If you look at a common, but now falsified, ‘evolutionary tree,’ humans were once lemur-like creatures. And before that…
As a moderator on another forum, I sometimes think I’m dealing with a playground full of 5 year olds. But, I do know that these are grown men who can sometimes behave like 5 year olds.
Bornagain77: Well JVL, so you issued an ad hominem attack on me and called me a coward simply because I refused to play your silly game and admit to an obviously true point on classification?
Thank you for admitting that humans do match the morphological definition of primate.
And since you have become increasing abusive and angry towards me recently, do you think I ought to have admin settle the matter for us JVL? Or do you think I ought to let you continue with your ad hominem attacks against me? Seeing that we are humans, not apes, we do have rules of behavior you know.
You can try. But then the admins would have to admit to a severe double standard since they have frequently in the past let descriptions of me as being insane or mad or stupid or much much worse pass without comment. Also, if you want to go down that route then you’d have to curb your own tendency for name calling.
Please try to be better in your dialogue with me. You have been given fair warning.
Are you threatening me? With what authority?
Relatd: If you look at a common, but now falsified, ‘evolutionary tree,’ humans were once lemur-like creatures. And before that…
Since you clearly are unable to answer simple questions I’ll just stop talking to you on this particular topic.
JVL at 284,
You need a new hobby. Seriously.
JVL at 285,
I’ve got a picture of my great, great, etc. grandfather as an amoeba-like creature.
JVL, to be clear, I have never personally called you insane, mad or stupid. I have called your beliefs insane, mad, or stupid.
I believe you have taken offense to this quote that I have often cited,
Note that it is the belief that life can possibly be an accident, not any particular person, that is being called insane.
Moreover, if you continue your angry attacks against me personally, It is not a threat, but a promise that I will take it up with admin.
Bornagain77: Moreover, if you continue your angry attacks against me personally, It is not a threat, but a promise that I will take it up with admin.
Oooo, I’m really scared now.
You have always been terribly dismissive and rude about anyone’s belief which disagrees with your own. Always. You have always portrayed such beliefs as less than rational, to put it mildly. And yet you threaten me with sanctions for using the same tactics you have done in the past. For shame.
In all the years I have been participating in this site I have never, ever seen you admit to making a mistake or conceding that even part of your views were incorrect. I have admitted that I was wrong earlier on this very thread.
Is there any point, at all, in trying to have a dialogue with you in the future? Is there any possible scenario when you might concede even a minor point of your beliefs?
I don’t want to waste your time or my time if you are never, ever even going to consider that you might need to adjust your views.
“And yet you threaten me with sanctions for using the same tactics you have done in the past.”
Again, I have never attacked you personally. If you disagree with me then please cite the exact thread where I attacked you personally. I don’t recall ever doing so. And if I ever inadvertently ever did sink to that level of personally attacking you, I apologize.
As far as I can recall, I have always attacked your beliefs, and not you personally, as being ‘irrational, insane, mad’, etc.. etc.. That is a BIG difference. It is the spirit of open and honest debate that ideas/beliefs, etc.. and not people, can be attacked and/or defended. Indeed, open and honest debate simply would be impossible if beliefs were not allowed to be attacked and defended.
Moreover, instead of just calling your beliefs “‘irrational, insane, mad’, etc.. etc., I have, in my limited ability, always tried my best to use logic and empirical evidence to clearly demonstrate, for all to see, that your Darwinian beliefs are, in fact, “‘irrational, insane, mad’, etc.. etc.,
For what it’s worth, though I certainly think your beliefs are “‘irrational, insane, mad’, etc.. etc., I personally hold you to be reasonably smart guy, A reasonably smart guy who, hopefully, may someday ‘get it’ before its too late.
PM1 & JVL, personalising and polarising. I am pointing out something fairly obvious, that one who speaks with disregard to truth, disregards first principles of reason and is more moved to use what persuades rather than what is warranted, rejects something that is on your terms “EXTERNAL” but which is in fact UNIVERSAL AND BINDING. So, the attempt to discredit “external” critiques easily becomes an invitation to relativism, subjectivism and — doubtless inadvertently — will to power nihilism. My capital examples of recent times, of course are Hitler and co, Stalin and co, and the like. The issue of critique and analysis is objective warrant tracing to sound reasoning. KF
Hi All
There is a post from VJ Torley at TSZ that those interested in Christian apologetics may want to read.
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....-skeptics/
At first glance, I’m a little bit surprised at VJT here. He is making a common mistake (made here also quite frequently by our skeptical friends) of assuming that human language can convey the fullness of things that originate at a higher level. The first example I ran across was:
>”Does it even make sense to say that one and the same person has two distinct minds – let alone two radically different ones: an infinite one and a finite one?”
Well, when it comes to a higher/superior being communicating things to inferior beings, one has to simplifications somewhere along the way. One cannot assume that the above claim, the Trinity, etc., are completely expressible in all their depth, in mere human language. We might like it to be that way, so we wouldn’t have to keep explaining this background information all the time, but it just can’t be avoided.
In any case, everywhere I glanced in the linked post, the above error crops up…maybe I’ll find more time to study it more closely later–if I can get past the glaring error(s).
EDTA,
Why not post your comment over at TSZ, where VJT and others can respond to it?
EDTA per VJT: ”Does it even make sense to say that one and the same person has two distinct minds – let alone two radically different ones: an infinite one and a finite one?”
First off, the trinity has been debated and ably defended by prominent Christian theologians for a very, very, long time. Here is a good and brief overview for the main arguments against the trinity and the main defenses against those arguments.
Thus there is a rich, and long, history in the church of defending the trinity.
But as to modern science and the finite and infinite divide in Christianity,. How can the finite and infinite divide found in Christianity possibly relate to modern science?
First a little background is necessary, our own William Dembski, (a prominent ID advocate who started this blog), has stated the following as to bridging the finite/infinite divide,
Of note: I hold it to be fairly obvious that ‘growing large without measure’ can only ever be a potential infinity. Whereas a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero would be an actual infinity and/or a “completed totality”
And I also note that this actual infinity and/or a “completed totality” fits extremely well with the Augustian theological notion that “this infinity of numbers (potential infinity) is not outside the comprehension of him “whose understanding cannot be numbered” (i.e. God’s completed infinity).”
So exactly how does the ‘completed infinity’ of Christ’s resurrection from death possibly relate to modern science?
Well, much like the infinite mathematical divide that exists between finite man and infinite God, there is also found to be an infinite mathematical divide between general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
The theory is not renormalizable.”
And as theoretical physicist Sera Cremonini stated, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
And as Michio Kaku stated in the following video, when you try to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, “you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).”
Various attempts have been made to find a mathematical workaround for this ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, M-Theory, etc.. They have all failed.
In fact, “The ones currently most promising adopt a very radical attitude to infinity. They deny that the infinitely small can exist in the universe, but prescribe a minimum possible scale, essentially the so-called Planck scale.”
Yet even this attempted workaround of prescribing a minimum possible size will not bridge the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Specifically, it is now proven, via the extension of Godel’s incompleteness into quantum physics, that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”,
In short, and mathematically speaking, the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics, (even if you prescribe a minimum possible size), will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity. i.e. There will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that includes both quantum mechanics and general relativity into a single mathematical equation.
And although there will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between quantum mechanics and general relativity, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory if everything’.
As I stated previously via William Dembski, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founder of modern physics, Sir Isaac Newton himself, originally envisioned,
,, and when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,
,, then that (very) reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very plausible, and empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
Specifically, when scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we ‘surprisingly’ find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
As can be seen in the following ‘backside’ image, and holographic image video, from the Shroud of Turin, there is no flattening on the backside of the body as would be expected if the image on the Shroud had formed if a dead body had merely been laying flat on a slab of rock.
And in the following video, the late Isabel Piczek, who made a sculpture from the Shroud of Turin states that, “The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.”
As well, Kevin Moran, an optical engineer who has studied the Shroud of Turin, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”
Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud of Turin also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was also dealt with.
In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.
That it is even possible for the human body to emit such ‘quantum light’ is revealed by the following,
Thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with a very plausible, and empirically backed, reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
@291
At no point did I ever attempt to discredit external criticism. I said nothing about it, positive or negative.
I made the distinction between external criticism and internal criticism (which, by the way, is widespread) in order to underscore a specific feature of Slagle’s project: that he, like Plantinga, is attempting to show that naturalism is self-undermining.
This requires beginning with the naturalist’s own commitments, and then elucidating that those commitments have inferential consequences that contradict the initial commitments themselves.
By contrast, an external criticism would begin with commitments that are not specific to the naturalist’s own position.
My objection to Plantinga is that his attempt to show that naturalism is self-undermining fails. For a while I had thought it failed because he doesn’t see that teleosemantics gives the naturalist a way to avoid semantic epiphenomenalism. I then realized that the issue rather is that he doesn’t think teleosemantics is compatible with metaphysical or mathematical claims.
I still think that the best naturalistic response to Plantinga is this article by Paul Churchland: naturalism is not based on the cognitive capacities as shaped by millions of years of natural selection, but rather is based on the symbolically articulated, culturally scaffolded, and technologically augmented social practices, especially those specific to modern science.
What Plantinga would need to show is that science cannot be naturalized: that we cannot use metaphysical naturalism in order to explain why scientific practices, when all goes well, disclose features of the structure of reality.
For whatever it may be worth, I regard Rouse’s Articulating the World: Conceptual Understanding and the Scientific Image as the most successful attempt to date in naturalizing scientific knowledge.
I think that anyone who wants to defend the Plantinga-Slagle line that metaphysical naturalism is incompatible with scientific knowledge itself should frame that criticism in response to Rouse.
PM1, you tried to set up a frame that invites an insulation around internalism. I highlighted universally binding first principles and duties as a relevant answer. Moreover, it is a matter of common enough fact to see setting up a closed circle then taking an implicit exception — start with pomo use of the six blind men of hindustan. This is directly relevant to a first principle, contradiction, and here to self referential incoherence. Many evasive arguments have been put up but in the end, the incoherence is inescapable. KF
Kairosfocus writes:
To be fair, you asserted and declared them. That’s a far cry from highlighting them.
Bornagain77@295, 296 and 297 writes:
Well, let’s be honest. Does anybody seriously read anything he writes? Especially when he starts ranting about the shroud of Turin? A fraud that the fraudster is on record of admitting his fraud?
Ford Prefect @302,
Yes. Actually, Bornagain77 provides valuable information and links to people who are open and interested. While I’m already familiar with a lot of the information he provides, I do follow the links of my personal interest and appreciate the trove of information he’s collected.
Besides vituperation, what have you been providing?
-Q
FP, do you recognise that without distinct identity — ponder bits 0/1, alphanumeric text [ASCII etc], codes for images and video involving distinct states, phonemes, etc — you cannot communicate with text or otherwise, or that non contradiction and excluded middle are close corollaries, or that one may simply ask why something is/is not/may be/cannot be, thence inquire about cause etc? Further, if you do not value truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, fairness etc, that is excellent reason to hold you as an empty troll of no credibility? Do you even realise that by implying want of warrant, you are appealing to said first principles and duties of reason, sitting on the same branch with the rest of us? More can be said but that is enough to show why we are here dealing with universally binding first principles and duties. KF
PS, you would be well advised to ponder the following recorded incident with Epictetus:
Our education systems have failed us badly.
FP claims the Shroud of Turin is a fraud from the Middle Ages. i.e. “A fraud that the fraudster is on record of admitting his fraud”.
Yet, that oft repeated false claim from atheists has been debunked.
There are quite a few other ‘small’ problems with FP’s oft repeated false claim that the Shroud is a fraud. For instance, the carbon dating that had supposedly dated to the Middle Ages has now been overturned.
Specifically, the carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2004 by none other than Raymond Rogers, the lead chemist on the STURP team. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1988 carbon testing has now been established.
Rogers passed away shortly after publishing that paper, but his work was ultimately verified by scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory:
As well, newly developed ‘non-destructive’ dating methods have now placed the age of the Shroud at the time of Christ
Now that the flawed carbon dating has finally been overturned, all the other major lines of evidence that strongly indicated the Shroud is authentic, lines of evidence which atheists have simply ignored, now converge and establish the Shroud as authentic.
Perhaps the best piece of evidence that Shroud is not a fraud is the simple fact that the technology that was needed to produce the shroud did not exist in the Middle Ages. And still today, with all our advanced technology, we still cannot reproduce the Shroud in all its detail.
Moreover, the Shroud image has a very enigmatic photographic negative, 3-D holographic, characteristic to it.
Basically, we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photography was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about. Moreover, even with our present day technology, we still cannot replicated the image in all its detail.
My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please pray tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention the invention and mastery of laser holography? Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments that he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical mad super-genius!
As Silver Asiatic commented,
Verse:
@299
I absolutely did no such thing at all. I simply made a perfectly intelligible distinction between different kinds of criticism, and I did so in order to underscore the specific kind of criticism that Plantinga and Slagle are engaged in.
Bornagain77 @304,
While this is off topic from the evidence of the intelligent design of the universe, you might find this interesting since you brought up the shroud of Turin. It’s a stretch, but maybe one can suggest that the design of the universe and the shroud of Turin are points where science potentially encounters God.
As you know, the shroud of Turin is the most intensely studied cloth in human history, employing chemical analysis of the dirt in it, the weave pattern, blood type analysis (type AB), holographic 3D imaging, C-14 dating (flawed due to contamination by a medieval re-weaving that repaired a charred corner of the original cloth), pollen analysis, and even some cutting-edge technologies.
The Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain, is the face cloth that once covered the face of a crucified man for a few hours. It seems to match up with the face area on the shroud of Turin—wound locations, blood flows, type AB blood . . . and they have different provenances. Here are some references:
https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm
And here’s a scientific article on the subject from 2015:
https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/abs/2015/02/shsconf_atsi2014_00008/shsconf_atsi2014_00008.html
And photos
http://www.shroudofturin.us/
-Q
Q, thanks.
As to: “maybe one can suggest that the design of the universe and the shroud of Turin are points where science potentially encounters God.”
More than the vast majority of people realize.
PM1, yes, you did make such claims and continue to do so. However, we both know that a material issue is that many dispute the first principles of logical reasoning (esp. LNC and even weak form principles of sufficient reason thence causality and the necessary beings) and even more dispute demonstrably branch on which we all sit first duties of reason; their name is legion. These principles and duties, however are both manifestly pervasive self evident first principles, that are universally binding. When therefore an ideology or school of thought would dismiss or dispute such — even though they are “external” to it — that critique is highly valid and remains so despite objection or dismissal. In fact such resistance becomes evidence of the unreasonableness involved in the school and its doctrine in the military sense. And of course, as self referentiality and incoherence are bound up in these, such a critique is valid once substantial. KF
PS, by weak form, I here imply that for any A that is/is not/may be/may not be/ is impossible, we may freely ask why and hope with confidence that we may have an answer on inquiry. Where, using PW, we may see that some candidates A are impossible of being, and that others are possible. Of the latter some are contingent and caused, others are necessary and fabric to any possible world.
~ “external criticism”
When someone attempts to criticize my position by saying that I am wrong to claim that there isn’t any scientific proof for the realness of near-death experiences, I would simply reply that I made no such claim. So, I would make clear that the person is mistaken about my position WRT NDE, and leave it at that. I would not go on to state, as you do, that this person engages in “external criticism based on criteria to which someone is not committed.” And even now that you have made me aware of the possibility to do so, I won’t adopt this practice, because it makes exactly zero sense to me.