Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

LNC: “Yes or No”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Let’s clear up this law of noncontradiction issue between StephenB and eigenstate once and for all. StephenB asks eigenstate: “Can the planet Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense? That’s a “yes or no” question eigenstate. How do you answer it?

Further update: Eigenstate has run for cover.
The genesis of this post was StephenB’s accusation that eigenstate refused to concede the law of noncontradiction: “For you [i.e.,eigenstate], the law of non-contradiction is a “useful tool” except on those occasions when it reveals the poverty of your non-arguments, at which time, it can be safely discounted. That position alone renders you unfit for rational dialogue.”

Surely not, I thought to myself. No one can argue logically and at the same time ever deny the law of noncontradiction, because the law of noncontradiction underlies ALL logical arguments. So I put this post up to give eigenstate a chance to refute StephenB’s accusation. I know eigenstate came back onto this site after I put up this post, because he commented on another string after this post went up. Yet he refused to answer the question. I can only conclude from this that StephenB is correct. Eigenstate and his ilk are not acting in good faith. They feel free to spew their nonsense, but when they are confronted with a challenge they cannot meet they run away. He is not, as StephenB points out, fit for rational dialogue, and you will not see him on this site again.

Another update: At another site Eigenstate says he responded here, which is an outrageous lie. At that same site he put up an idiot’s answer to the question which is not worth responding to. Suffice it to say it was neither “yes” nor “no.”

Comments
I totally agree with you, but I think your assumption is ungrounded.Timbo
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
No, I was just wondering if your suggestion at 20.2.1 was intentionally funny.
I am not sure I follow. Since this thread was supposed to be about ES response to a specific question, I am assuming there was an interest in having a discussion about that response. As illogical as I find his subsequent exclusion from this thread, I have to believe the interest in having that discussion still exists. So, if it isn't allowed to take place here, why wouldn't the participants continue over at Dr. Liddle's site? It seems a much more congenial place than antievolution.org.ben h
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
No, as I understand it, all systems of logic have their own internal consistency. So all systems of logic uphold the LNC in your view? And yes, I agree its got to be something more than just throwing something out. Interestingly, you have added the words “in the same sense” into your version of LNC, which I assume indicates you are adapting the rule to deal with quantum superposition? Why would I be 'adapting the rule' just by adding "in the same sense"? It's not an addition to the rule but a clarification of communication, to avoid nonseqs like "See, this coin is both worth 25 cents and worth nothing at the exact same time. Because it's an American dollar, but this machine only takes bills."nullasalus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Nullasalus, No, as I understand it, all systems of logic have their own internal consistency. And yes, I agree its got to be something more than just throwing something out. Interestingly, you have added the words "in the same sense" into your version of LNC, which I assume indicates you are adapting the rule to deal with quantum superposition?Timbo
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
kf, Why not run with it? Apparently, the fact that quantum physics is weird emboldens some people to say that the LNC is optional and can be given up. That's pretty severe. I suppose, then, we can't rule out - if we permit sacrificing the LNC and the like - that some supernatural cause is at work at each and every quantum event, especially if it would allow us to retain the LNC, yes? Which would seem to suggest that - if we can claim "I will interpret quantum events as LNC violations" as "there is scientific evidence the LNC is wrong", we can also claim "I will interpret quantum events as supernatural acts" as "there is scientific evidence for the supernatural", eh? If we're going to play, let's play.nullasalus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
And in fact there already exist different systems of logic that have been developed because they yield useful results in the investigation of some phenomena. You mean those systems of logic where consistency is optional, and what would be a reductio ad absurdum elsewhere is viewed as not a problem there? Also, what are the useful results you speak of? I mean, it's got to be something more than just, "well, if we throw out the LNC, that means we can say this thing both exists and does not exist at the same time in the same sense", right?nullasalus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
CY: You can see my markup. Just start with physicists playing games with their equations where symbols mean and don't mean, and relationships and operations mean and don't mean, and you see the chaos. Besides, I took time to mark up ES, and it looks like something is not adding up with the sort of way the results are being reported. Why is it that the common garden variety explanation that we have superposition happening and being observed is not being seriously considered, isn't that what you are evidently actually seeing? But A + B --> C, is not to be equated to A and not A etc. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
This has to be the weirdest thread I have ever seen at UD, for where comments go!kairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Ah well, the numbering scheme strikes again. My markup of ES is here.kairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
F/N: I have marked up ES' claims as EL has displayed them at her blog. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
I think you are just defining the problem away. By definition you cannot observe two states simultaneously, and by definition you cannot observe tunnelling. "By definition"? What definition? I mean, I get that it's in principle impossible, or at the very least taken to be in principle impossible. But "by definition"? I'm not defining any problem away. I'm pointing out the very real limits with regards to observation and experiment, and the variety of possibilities that remain over. Here, I think, is the key problem for you: You preserve the definitional rules of logic, but you are still left with physical phenomena that violate our ordinary understanding of how matter exists and behaves. So? It's not like 'physical phenomena that violate our ordinary understanding' goes away, if only we sacrifice logic. We're getting that either way. So what's the advantage of sacrificing the LNC again? Is it something other than "I don't really like the LNC, at least sometimes - I'd like an exception"? Is it "this phenomena is pretty odd compared to classical physics - I can sacrifice whatever I want"?nullasalus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
CY, I think what they are saying is that LNC is part of a system of formal logic that is used as a tool to investigate and understand the natural world. However, it is possible that discoveries in the natural world (and to a certain degree this seems to be the case for QM) will be more usefully understood and investigated by using a different system of logic. And in fact there already exist different systems of logic that have been developed because they yield useful results in the investigation of some phenomena.Timbo
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
KF, Over at EL's blog the current consensus appears to be that while the LNC certainly applies to logic, it does not necessarily apply to physics. My question is: how would anyone doing physics know that it might not apply to physics without first applying the law in their interpretation of physical properties and interactions? It seems to me that one could not determine that the LNC might not apply to physics without first applying the law to what they are observing and/or calculating. To assert that the LNC does not apply to certain aspects of physics is simply guess work IMHO. It's intended to avoid having to commit to the obvious when it's inconvenient.CannuckianYankee
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
No, I was just wondering if your suggestion at 20.2.1 was intentionally funny.Timbo
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
I've been on this site since last summer, but I mainly just lurk. So, if you are wondering why you don't see much of me, that is the reason.ben h
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
ben h, you have not been around here for long, have you.Timbo
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Theoretically, it is possible that Barry didn't even exist at the time he banned eigenstate, but statistically speaking, the chance that it happened that way is virtually zero.StephenB
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Thank you! I found it. Hopefully, Stephen and Barry will go over and continue the discussion with him. It looked like it was going to be an interesting one.ben h
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
SB: I would suggest, rather that the foundational point is not causality but that for what is, there is a sufficient reason, of which cause is one type; for that which is contingent. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
It' OK, ben h There's a copy at Liz Liddle's blog, The Skeptical Zone. You could eat your dinner off the floor there!Bydand
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
But, what is the sense of him replying elsewhere rather than here? I could see if he had no answer to give that he would run away. But, to post it at (apparently) two different sites that are frequented by many of the regular posters here, but not here, has no logic to it. Our regular commenters are going to see his reply anyways, so there is no reason for him to not reply here. It seems more likely that his reply got lost in the ether somewhere. Expecially, given the problems kairosfocus having posted. Given that likelihood, it seems odd not to give him a chance to try and get the post up here again.ben h
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
I deleted it ben. if ES does not have the guts to post his idiocy here (and he did not), I will not let one of his surrogates do it for him.Barry Arrington
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Maybe I was dreaming, but I could have swore I saw someone post what was purported to be ES response to the OP. I was on my way out the door and didn't have time to read it. But, it is not here now. Was I just imagining that? I really wanted to read it, but I really don't want to dirty myself over at the fever swamp to find it. ;) Thanks!ben h
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
axel, for me to make sense of the delayed choice experiment, I had to realize that 'photons' do not travel as particles in the universe but travel, if 'travel' is even a appropriate term to use, as 'uncollapsed quantum waves' in the universe: i.e. The fact that photons are shown to 'travel' as uncollapsed quantum information waves in the double slit experiment, and not as collapsed particles, is what gives us a solid reason for proposing the mechanism of the universal quantum wave collapse of photons to each unique conscious observer in the universe.
Double-slit experiment Excerpt: In quantum mechanics, the double-slit experiment (often referred to as Young's experiment) demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle natures of light and other quantum particles. A coherent light source (e.g., a laser) illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as though it were made of discrete particles, called photons.,,, Any modification of the apparatus that can determine (that can let us observe) which slit a photon passes through destroys the interference pattern, illustrating the complementarity principle; that the light can demonstrate both particle and wave characteristics, but not both at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/
Further notes here:
Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
bornagain77
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
“Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics.“ Well, bornagain77, does not the absolute speed of light suggest that photons have their own reference- frame exogenous to space-time, presumably beyond the one event horizon of the Big Bang, even though they interact with space-time, and submit to it (in a spirit of subsidiarity favoured by Pope Benedict, nae doot), in that they can be at least partially absorbed by solid surfaces? So that, despite this absolute quality, their speed through space-and the distance they travel through it, can be measured according to the latter's reference-frame. This seems to me to be the case, and to evoke thoughts of Christ's Incarnation. Does it not seem that the quantum level of matter might actually already be beyond an immanent event horizon, so that we may shortly arrive at a limit, beyond which analytical reasoning will simply encounter absolute imponderables.Axel
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Consider for example, the question, “can a circle be imperfect?” At the logical level it is impossible for a circle to be imperfect, but in the world of physical circles, all are imperfect.
If, in the world of physical circles, all (known) circles are imperfect, then the answer is yes, a circle can be imperfect. The abstract definition of a circle does not include any imperfections. Why would it? That is not the same as saying that the definition disallows imperfect circles. If all physical circles are imperfect then you could examine each up close and decide that they are technically not really circles. If you really want to split hairs you could say that all those rounds things we call "circles" really aren't - they are just circular. (I'm going to file that away in case I ever want to annoy someone for no good reason. 'You know, that's not technically a circle if you look close enough. Circles are perfect and don't really exist. That's circular.') There's no contradiction.ScottAndrews2
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Axel: Charles, I’m putting your name forward for a Nobel Prize. Hmmm.... considering the company I'd be keeping, I'd rather be Fed Chairman :-/Charles
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
"Nominated for the “Elizabeth Liddle Memorial Goal Post Redefinition” award." Charles, I'm putting your name forward for a Nobel Prize. I'm just not sure at the moment, for what field it should properly be recommended.Axel
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
"To my mind this does cast some doubt on the law of non contradiction." CLAVDIS Would 'muddy' the picture be more accurate? The impression I get - not a criticism - is that you are all trying to tease out whether ostensibly contradictory propositions are paradoxes or oxymorons? Would that be correct?Axel
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Logic? Or have I missed something/everything?Axel
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply