LNC: “Yes or No”

_{Barry Arrington

February 12, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

LNC is a rule within formal logic. It is axiomatic. What is the point of discussing whether it is true or false? As an axiom it is irrelevant to matters decided empirically. If one axiomatically asserts that Jupiter exists, then it cannot axiomatically not exist. But physical objects do not exist axiomatically. Their existence is assumed as a result of empirical evidence, and physics currently suggests that such evidence is probabilistic.Petrushka_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Mike, My understanding is that there are interpretations of quantum mechanics that may say something like that, but there's also a problem with actually deciding between any of those interpretations. The favorite response, if not interpretation, I've heard about the whole thing is 'shut up and calculate'.nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Superposition is about probabilities. I.e, it's about what *we* can say about, say, the states (e.g, position and volocity) of a particle. There's nothing whatsoever in any actual equation of any branch of QM that says "an entity (take your pick) can exist and not exist at the same time." Anyone who says otherwise is full of crap.mike1962_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Bruce, You seem to be the same person who made this same argument on this blog a year or so ago. Or does that Bruce David in your mind, not exist anymore?CannuckianYankee_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Incidentally, notice that when describing Jupiter’s lack of existence Bruce David had to refer back to Jupiter by saying “its” constituent particles. In other words, there is a concrete, accepted concept of the thing observed — the “it” — that we are calling Jupiter. This back door incorporation of the objective reality always occurs when someone tries to deny objective reality — they have to describe the lack of reality by self-referencing back to the very thing the existence of which is being denied.
When communicating in this blog, I am constrained to the use of the English language. This does not imply any particular metaphysical position, only that I must use the structures inherent in language to communicate.Bruce David_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Whoops, pardon. I read that as 'can exist and not exist at the same time'.nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Same way they can know red paint makes a car go faster.nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Incidentally, a blogger named Keiths (didn't he hang out with us for a while), at the website in question, points out that a five-year-old would know that a physical object cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Indeed. That same blogger challenges Barry to learn some quantum mechanics, arguing that superposition can invalidate the laws of logic. Well, I am prepared to debate that point, but I would first ask Keiths the following question: How does the five year old KNOW (rightly so) that a physical object cannot exist and not exist at the same time? Anybody?StephenB_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

Quantum physics posits that an object can move from one position to another without traversing the intervening space. It also posits that electrons orbiting a nucleus have positions that can only be expressed as a probability distribution. All this stretches traditional thinking about what matter is and how it exists. Right, but I'm trying to see where, specifically, we're getting - if you were saying this or something like this - 'physics shows the LNC is false'. Greater questions about what matter is or is not (or, with a nod to Bruce David, whether it even exists) is interesting, but that's a different question.nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

I provided a brief response @9.1.StephenB_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

I'm afraid I'm not qualified to argue quantum physics. My understating is that superposition poses difficulties for traditional ways of thinking, but I'm not qualified to debate the point. Quantum physics posits that an object can move from one position to another without traversing the intervening space. It also posits that electrons orbiting a nucleus have positions that can only be expressed as a probability distribution. All this stretches traditional thinking about what matter is and how it exists.Petrushka_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

nullasalus:
Part of my concern here is that I’m wondering if there’s a line between ‘interpretations of quantum mechanics’ and ‘the science of quantum mechanics’, and if so, whether that line is being crossed or confused in this conversation.
I would certainly grant you that both are often conflated and misinterpreted, by theologian and scientist alike. There are not sufficent facts, IMO, from which to conclude either doctrine or theory. At best, at present, all we can do is identify what is disproven, unproven, or self-contradictory.
Regarding ‘two contradictory outcomes’, I think I agree.
I understood you to agree. I didn't see you argue that.
Part of my point with Bruce David is that I thought he misunderstood the question – his own example seems to conflict with the ‘in the same sense’ reply.
I don't think it was given a lot of thought. It seemed somewhat automatic arguendo. Certainly pointing out his response also failed the "same sense" criteria was well worth making.Charles_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

I don't know about the timing of his answer, but I do know about its non-validity (based on his answer at the website in question). As always, he avoided a Yes OR No question and responded by saying, Yes AND No, that is, he said the answer was "Theoretically yes, and statistically No." That comment makes absolutely no sense. Put another way, he is saying that theoretically, Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time and under the same formal circumstances, but statistically, the answer is almost No, but not quite. Keep in mind that I had to wade through answers like that for days. I'll make this quick. Statistics cannot measure the "probability" that something can exist and not exist at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. It isn't a probability question at all; it is a yes or no question based on logical "possibilities." Imagine trying to gather a statistically significant sample of Jupiters existing and not existing at the same time, if you can stretch your imagination that far. What could one possibly observe to get the numbers needed? (Only one Jupiter exists) How does one observe a Jupiter that doesn't exist and compare it with the Jupiter(s) that does (do). What about the fact that you might be observing a Jupiter that appears to exist, but doesn't, owing to the insane theory it may be able to exist and not exist at the same time. This is nonsense at the highest possible level. As I often point out, the lights are going out in Western Civilization. I really don't know how much time we have left.StephenB_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

StephenB, What do you make of eigenstates answer over at Atbc?kuartus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Charles, However, at the quantum level, our earthly experiments demonstrate that we mere mortals can by “observation” (i.e measurement) alter the outcome of a photon’s passage through a slit. Part of my concern here is that I'm wondering if there's a line between 'interpretations of quantum mechanics' and 'the science of quantum mechanics', and if so, whether that line is being crossed or confused in this conversation. The question of measurement and its effects, if any, in quantum level experiments is something I understood to be pretty open. Regarding 'two contradictory outcomes', I think I agree. Part of my point with Bruce David is that I thought he misunderstood the question - his own example seems to conflict with the 'in the same sense' reply.nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

nullasalus: Certainly there is some scriptural justification for the interpretation of God being the observer who sustains all (Heb 1:3) and holds all things together (Col 1:17). However, at the quantum level, our earthly experiments demonstrate that we mere mortals can by "observation" (i.e measurement) alter the outcome of a photon's passage through a slit. But that would seem to necessitate that while we "observe", God 'looks away' so as to not disrupt our observation. And regardless, our observation only results in one outcome, albeit a surprising one, but not two contradictory outcomes. Yes, God might be "the (ultimate)" observer, and yes, observation can alter quantum outcomes, but no, neither seems to produce simultaneous contradictory outcomes. Jupiter at one time did not exist, then came into existence seemingly by acretion rather than our observation, and continues to exist, with or without our "observations". I dare say, somewhere there are other extra-solar objects coming into existence even now, without our knowing (or ability) to "observe" them either.Charles_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

What I missed was the discussion in which formal logic has any applicability to the world of empirical science. I suspect the application is subject to exceptions, because objects in the real world have fuzzy boundaries. Sorry, not clear on what you're saying here. Are you saying that "A = A" isn't applicable in empirical science? And/or that the LNC has no application? I also asked if you're talking principally about superposition with regards to 'what physics measures'.nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

I had a crisis at work this week and missed the acrimonious thread. I also admit missing in the OP, the phrase, "in the same sense." Formal logic is formal logic. If one defines the rules of logic such that A=A, then A not equal A breaks the rules as defined. What I missed was the discussion in which formal logic has any applicability to the world of empirical science. I suspect the application is subject to exceptions, because objects in the real world have fuzzy boundaries.Petrushka_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

--Petrushka: "The problem is that what physics measures doesn’t always conform to the elements of formal logic." That is not true at all. Don't believe everything that uneducated, postmodern scientists tell you. If you will summon up the courage to answer the question on the table, as asked, I, or perhaps someone else will take you through the process, from macro marvels to micro marvels. To scrutinize, you must be willing to be scrutinized, especially since the latter element is consistent with the theme of Barry's post, which is, I hasten to remind you, a question.StephenB_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:56 PM
5
05
56
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. Substitute for Jupiter and ask if Betelgeuse exists. Consider that it's 640 light years away and likely to go supernova in the "near" future. Maybe it already has. Language is tricky. What does it mean to ask if Betelgeuse exists? Does it mean anything beyond the fact that we can see it?Petrushka_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

My understanding is that Eigenstate was banned BEFORE this post was made. Doesn't seem correct, since Eigenstate said in another thread: "Oh, and here’s as good a place to note as any: Barry, I’ve replied on the LNC thread, it’s on your moderation queue or whatever."nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

ogreMk5 is no longer with us.OgreMk5_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

--Petrushka: "The point is that when physicists kick the rock at the particle level, it may or may not be there." You are confusing the metaphor with which Barry refuted idealism, with the subject of quantum mechanics, which he did not address. Meanwhile, you remain silent about the question that is on the table.StephenB_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

The problem is that what physics measures doesn’t always conform to the elements of formal logic. I take it you're talking principally about superposition here?nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

The problem is that what physics measures doesn't always conform to the elements of formal logic. Since the OP is a lawyer, I'm sure he understands the problem faced by a jury when testimony is contradictory. There may be a reality out there in which the call was either answered or not answered, but that absolute reality is not accessible to the jury, so the jury must weigh probabilities. What physicists might say is that the jury's dilemma is an inescapable feature of our reality. There are things which we cannot ever know, even in principle. The probability that Jupiter exists may be so high that we can bet out lives, even the lives of out children on it, but it never reaches certainty. If the object is a subatomic particle, it's best not to wager any serious money. The point is that the objects of the physical world cannot be substituted into formal logical propositions. They are, after all, part of the shadow world, not the world of ideas. A=A is not quite the same as Jupiter=Jupiter.Petrushka_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

The point is that when physicists kick the rock at the particle level, it may or may not be there. 'May or may not be there' doesn't capture the problem. If I call someone on the phone, they may or may not answer. If they both answer and don't answer, in the same sense, there's a problem.nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

The point is that when physicists kick the rock at the particle level, it may or may not be there. The more particles, the more likely the object will meet the expectations of classical physics. But it never reaches certainty, even if it's a safe bet.Petrushka_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

"The whole problem with Stephen’s ideas about logic is that underlying them is the metaphysical position that there is actually a world out there independent of our minds. So by Jupiter, he means a “something” that has independent existence. . . . In my own philosophy, which is similar to Bishop Berkeley’s, Jupiter only exists as a complex of sense impressions, and then only when someone is looking at it." The problem with this philosophy is that it denies all objective reality and makes everything a figment of our imagination. There are very good reasons for thinking there is an objective reality (despite our occasional limitations in observing it), but we can set that aside for now because there is a simpler way to deal with the old question of whether reality exists or whether we are just brains in a jar. All we have to do is slightly rephrase the question: Rather than talking about whether Jupiter exists, we can ask whether Bruce David's "distribution of constituent particles" exists, or whatever proxy the particular person happens to be using for reality. Incidentally, notice that when describing Jupiter's lack of existence Bruce David had to refer back to Jupiter by saying "its" constituent particles. In other words, there is a concrete, accepted concept of the thing observed -- the "it" -- that we are calling Jupiter. This back door incorporation of the objective reality always occurs when someone tries to deny objective reality -- they have to describe the lack of reality by self-referencing back to the very thing the existence of which is being denied.Eric Anderson_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

He did respond. The response is reproduced at AtBC.Timbo_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Bruce, one of the reasons we are asking people to answer the question, as asked, is to encourage them to think the matter through prior to making any comments. [a] The law of non-contradiction is not synonymous with one's ultimate notion of reality. It is binding on a hylermorphic dualist or an idealistic monist, or a materialist monist. [b] Meanwhile, after being told that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and IN THE SAME SENSE, you respond with the profound observation that Jupiter can exist and not exist IN A DIFFERENT SENSE, which is news to no one. Even I, as a dualist, recognize that Jupiter can, at the same time, exist in my mind as a thought and, in the solar system as a planet. Let me put it in language that an idealist can understand: Jupiter cannot exist as complex sense impressions and NOT exist as complex sense impressions. Think, "in the same sense," "in the same sense," "in the same sense"..........StephenB_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply