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 think Bruce David isn't on the right track when it comes to LNC and Idealism. However, regarding 'who was observing Jupiter' and so on, I recall this being the idealist reply to a similar question:
There was a young man who said, "God Must think it exceedingly odd If he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in the Quad." REPLY Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd: I am always about in the Quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be, Since observed by Yours faithfully, God.
nullasalus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Bruce David, By one interpretation of quantum physics, for example, when no conscious mind is observing it, Jupiter is a very complex probability distribution of where its constituent particles will show up upon observation. It could be said in that case that it both exists (as a probability distribution) and does not exist (as an entity with a particular location). But see the post's qualification, "In the same sense." That's not at all what you're giving here. Idealism does not entail any denial of the LNC as far as I'm aware. Really, imagine that Jupiter was blinking in and out of existence constantly: the LNC is still not violated. The answer of 'Does Jupiter exist?' is just shifting between "yes" and "no" over and over.nullasalus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
@Bruce David. "By one interpretation of quantum physics, for example, when no conscious mind is observing it, Jupiter is a very complex probability distribution of where its constituent particles will show up upon observation." And as Dr. Johnson said when refuting Berkeley over 200 years ago, "I refute it thus!" [metaphorically kicking Jupiter]. Idealism is just as useless now as it was then.Barry Arrington
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Bruce David:
By one interpretation of quantum physics, for example, when no conscious mind is observing it, Jupiter is a very complex probability distribution of where its constituent particles will show up upon observation. ... 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.
Given that Jupiter's age is estimated at some 5 Billion years, just what "conscious mind" was observing it back then, and what is the point of having planetary formation models if mere "observation" is required for Jupiter to exist (or not)? Or perhaps gas & dust particles need to be "observed" so something exists to acrete into a planet, as well as the "observation" of the gravitational forces which do the acreteing? Well, that and of course, observed slowly over 5 Billion years. After all, we wouldn't want to "observe" it into existance all at once would we, as the sudden "observation" of a planet the mass of Jupiter would upset the orbital balance of the entire solar system... then where would we observers be. OTOH, perhaps there is something to this Law of Non-Contradiction thingy.Charles
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
P, I would modify that to "Since he has been banned it would be difficult for him to post."Barry Arrington
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
He did not respond. He was never in moderation.Barry Arrington
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
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 that philosophical system, of course Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. However, in other metaphysical systems, the answer is not so clear cut. By one interpretation of quantum physics, for example, when no conscious mind is observing it, Jupiter is a very complex probability distribution of where its constituent particles will show up upon observation. It could be said in that case that it both exists (as a probability distribution) and does not exist (as an entity with a particular location). 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. Reality, that which has actual existence, is mind, or spirit. So it could equally well be said that Jupiter both exists (as a complex of sense impressions, like the rest of the physical universe) and does not exist (in the sense that it has no inherent reality).Bruce David
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Since he has been banned it will be difficult for him to re-post.Petrushka
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
The easy answer of course would be to repost. (And, pardon, the wrong button is the reply in the WYSIWYG box below.)kairosfocus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
I see eigenstate is involved in a rather interesting discussion at Dr Liddle's blog, so he may have become distracted and pressed the wrong button. Or something. I can't see why he should say he's posted if he hasn't - he would assume that someone would check, surely. I mean, it's not like anyone would "disappear" a post, now is it?Bydand
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
PPS; Or, is this a case where we have "A and NOT-A" being true in the same sense at the same time? ;-)kairosfocus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
PS: For sure, there is no credible evidence that ES is in moderation! If his original answer is lost in cyberspace, he can always repost.kairosfocus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Mr Arrington: I believe ES has asserted in the original thread, that he submitted an answer that he claimed to be in some sort of moderation:
eigenstate February 12, 2012 at 1:15 am 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.
I would be interested to see such, if it exists. (Just possibly, if the wrong button, post, is hit it may send the comment to I believe the most recent thread, if that WP bug/feature is still doing its thing.) KFkairosfocus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Querius, poetic reply! :)bornagain77
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Ah, but you're conveniently missing the point! Every losing argument actually possesses eigenstates, in which it is sometimes brilliantly cogent, obviating the need for anything as trivial as a response; in other eigenstates the challenge is brilliantly refuted; and in still others, the challenging question has never been asked. By demanding an answer to whether Jupiter exists, you're brutally threatening to collapse a beautiful, elegant wave function. Shame on you! ;-)Querius
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply