Is the Galton Board evidence for intelligent design of the universe?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 16, 2023

Intelligent Design, Physics}

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

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

Comments

@206
I take it that by “a social practice” you mean scientific experiment.
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.
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.
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!PyrrhoManiac1_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

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.relatd_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

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.,,,"
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
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?bornagain77_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

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_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

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.JVL_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

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.JVL_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

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.
David Berlinski: "Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer… Come again … David Belinski: : No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects." https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/di-fellow-david-berlinski-there-is-no-argument-against-religion-that-is-not-also-an-argument-against-mathematics/ Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/ What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html Mathematics Can Prove the Existence of God - Michael Egnor - July 2022 Excerpt: The solution proposed by Augustine (and many other philosophers and theologians, most notably Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz) is called scholastic realism. Scholastic realism posits that God’s Mind is the Platonic realm of Forms. Augustine proposed that universals such as numbers, mathematics in general, propositions, logic, necessities and possibilities exist in the Divine Intellect, which is infinite and eternal. What’s remarkable about the reality of universals as proof for God’s existence is that it points in a simple and clear way to some of God’s attributes, such as infinity, eternity, and omnipotence. To see how, consider again the set of natural numbers, which is infinite. Therefore: – The Mind that contains them must itself be infinite. – Because the Mind in which natural numbers exists is infinite, it is also omnipotent. Limitations on power are finite and are inconsistent with an infinite Mind. — Because numbers exist independently of the material universe, they are eternal (e.g., the truth that 1+1=2 is independent of time) and thus the Mind that contains them is eternal. I find the Augustinian Proof of God’s existence via the reality of universals in the Divine Mind a compelling proof. It is a highly satisfying and an even beautiful concept — our abstract thoughts have a real existence in the Mind of our Creator, and we, who are created in His image, participate in His thoughts. https://mindmatters.ai/2022/07/mathematics-can-prove-the-existence-of-god/
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.,,,
New Book: For Kepler, Science Did Not Point to Atheism - Stephen C. Meyer - January 17, 2023 The Conflict Myth Unmade,,, As historian Ian Barbour says, “science in its modern form” arose “in Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world,” because only the Christian West had the necessary “intellectual presuppositions underlying the rise of science.”2 So, what were those presuppositions? We can identify three. As Melissa Cain Travis shows, (in her book: "Thinking God’s Thoughts: Johannes Kepler and the Miracle of Cosmic Comprehensibility"), all have their place in Kepler’s seminal works. More generally, all find their origin in the Judeo-Christian idea of a Creator God who fashioned human beings and an orderly universe. (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.,,, (2) The Contingency of Nature Second, early pioneers of science presupposed the contingency of nature. They believed that God had many choices about how to make an orderly world. Just as there are many ways to design a watch, there were many ways that God could have designed the universe. To discover how He did, scientists could not merely deduce the order of nature by assuming what seemed most logical to them; they couldn’t simply use reason alone to draw conclusions, as some of the Greek philosophers had done.,,, (3) The Fallibility of Human Reasoning Third, early scientists accepted a biblical understanding of the power and limits of the human mind. Even as these scientists saw human reason as the gift of a rational God, they also recognized the fallibility of humans and, therefore, the fallibility of human ideas about nature.,,, Such a nuanced view of human nature implied, on the one hand, that human beings could attain insight into the workings of the natural world, but that, on the other, they were vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and prematurely jumping to conclusions. This composite view of reason — one that affirmed both its capability and fallibility — inspired confidence that the design and order of nature could be understood if scientists carefully studied the natural world, but also engendered caution about trusting human intuition, conjectures, and hypotheses unless they were carefully tested by experiment and observation.11,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2023/01/new-book-for-kepler-science-did-not-point-to-atheism/
bornagain77_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

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.relatd_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

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_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

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.
The Naked Gun - "Nothing to see here!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404
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.
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
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".
KEEP IT SIMPLE by Edward Feser – April 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.,,, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
Of supplemental note:
The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Reason_Chaitin_2006.pdf Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.,,, The basic problem concerning the relation between AIT and free will can be stated succinctly: Since the theorems of mathematics cannot contain more information than is contained in the axioms used to derive those theorems, it follows that no formal operation in mathematics (and equivalently, no operation performed by a computer) can create new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf Bruce Gordon: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Verse and quote:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” ‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html
bornagain77_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

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_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

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_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

PM1@ 203, Bornagain77@
PM1: We are justified in holding a belief if it has survived iterative testing through a social practice that takes truth as its goal.
I take it that by “a social practice” you mean scientific experiment.
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!
I don’t think Slagle would accept that. He writes:
Therefore, if naturalism is true, one has a reason to refrain from believing naturalism. Moreover, this reason can never be overruled because the same considerations will apply to whatever reasoning one uses in attempting to nullify the reason itself. This makes it either an undefeatable defeater or an unresolvable defeater—in either case, a defeater that can never itself be ultimately defeated.
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.Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Our perceptions of reality are not trustworthy? Those who believe that should not be allowed to drive.relatd_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Thanks Origenes at 202. I saved your argument right under my Nancy Pearcey reference,
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, 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. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
Moreover, as if that was not bad enough, the Darwinist is also forced to believe that his perceptions of reality are not trustworthy
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? - Video - 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction (those organisms) that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
bornagain77_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

In re: 202
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. 5.) If naturalism is true, we cannot hold that naturalism is a true belief.
Consider the following line of thought: Suppose we were to rewrite (1) as
We are justified in holding a belief if it has survived iterative testing through a social practice that takes truth as its goal.
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!PyrrhoManiac1_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

VL @199
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.
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.Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

@198
What makes you say that? Utter nonsense.
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.
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.
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!PyrrhoManiac1_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

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):
Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, named after mathematicians Ernst Zermelo and Abraham Fraenkel, is an axiomatic system that was proposed in the early twentieth century in order to formulate a theory of sets free of paradoxes such as Russell's paradox. Today, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, with the historically controversial axiom of choice (AC) included, is the standard form of axiomatic set theory and as such is the most common foundation of mathematics. Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice included is abbreviated ZFC, where C stands for "choice", and ZF refers to the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice excluded.
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.JVL_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

"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.Viola Lee_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

PM1@ 197
Slagle: 1.) If naturalism is true, any given belief would be produced and sustained by processes that do not have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth.
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.
What makes you say that? Utter nonsense.
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.
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.
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.
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.Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

@192
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.”
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!
1.) If naturalism is true, any given belief would be produced and sustained by processes that do not have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth.
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?PyrrhoManiac1_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

KF@
... 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.
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.Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, That was a lot of verbiage, but none of it actually addresses the key point being raised over at TSZ. You write:
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.
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?tangent_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

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_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

PM1@ Again, Slagle’s skyhook against naturalism:
1.) If naturalism is true, any given belief would be produced and sustained by processes that do not have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth. 2.) If a belief is produced and sustained by processes that do not have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth, we have an undefeatable or unresolvable defeater for it. 3.) Naturalism is a belief. 4.) Therefore, if naturalism is true, belief in naturalism is produced and sustained by processes that do not have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth (from 1* and 3*). 5.) Therefore, if naturalism is true, we have an undefeatable or unresolvable defeater for naturalism (from 2. and 4.).
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_{January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply