Materialist Reaches New Low

_{Barry Arrington

November 8, 2018

Intelligent Design}

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

Barry: Can we know with absolute certainty that it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure?

JDK: “There is no possible answer to the question: it’s a meaningless question.”

UPDATE:

JDK has accused me of being intellectually dishonest for quoting him as saying (1) there is no possible answer to the question; and (2) it is a meaningless question. He has implied that the “context” of his statement makes it mean something other than what it appears to mean on its face.

OK JDK. I’ll bite. Do you believe the question has meaning and it is possible to answer? If so, answer it. If not, apologize for saying the quotation was dishonest.

SECOND UPDATE:

JDK continues to post in the comment thread. I noted that he had posted twice without responding. His response:

A true fact, Barry. This makes three times.

It surprises no one, I am sure, that JDK’s charge of dishonesty was, itself, fundamentally dishonest. What should we expect from someone who claims to be wobbly on the whole baby torture issue?

Comments

JDK:
The question of why the universe is as it is – why do things behave as they do – is, I don’t think, answerable, because how no matter how far down we create a chain of explanations, there is always the question of why are things like whatever the last link in the chain is?
This reflects the gap caused by the gap in our education systems regarding logic of being. We are not locked into infinite regress. There are intelligible principles which lie at the heart of reason and the logic of being. For example, the principle of identity in effect highlights that some A is what it is, i/l/o its core, distinctive cluster of characteristics. This is what marks A out from what is not A and we should not be surprised that A will have certain features that are stable; even in the case of a RA atom that due to instabilities is prone to transformations through decay processes. (I note, gamma decay is in effect relaxation from a high energy state of a nucleus, leading to a relaxed, lower energy state.) Going further, we may ponder possible vs impossible and contingent vs necessary beings. Impossible candidate beings have contradictory required core characteristics and cannot be instantiated in any world, a square circle being a classic illustration. Necessary beings are framework for any world to exist and are independent of external, enabling causes so they neither begin to be (which requires action of a cause) nor can they cease from being. Two-ness, rooted in distinct identity, exists necessarily and there cannot be any world without this quantitative property. Obviously, a world is. As non-being (the real nothing) can have no causal properties, if a world now is, something always was. Something independent of external enabling/disabling causes. And yes, that is in fact a pointer to where ever so many are utterly disinclined to go nowadays. That where, is not arbitrary or just an empty whim of credulity, in short. Especially in a world where we find responsibly, rationally free morally governed creatures. Such as we are. Of course, logic of being is an exploration of ontology and a pointer to cosmology, major facets of a sub-discipline now often dismissed with ill-advised contempt: metaphysics. But then, this is an un- or even anti- philosophical age. A warning, as the worst metaphysics of all is an unexamined, incoherent worldview; that predictably leads to a destructively foolish cultural agenda. KFkairosfocus_{November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

EG & BA, both of you are correct, in different circumstances. Atomic clocks classically are based on oscillations of Cs-137 atoms, and radiodating is a specific marker of time elapsed that is commonly used for dating/ estimated dating of findings from sites of interest. KFkairosfocus_{November 12, 2018
November
11
Nov
12
12
2018
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

EG, the presence of a population of relevant atoms is a causal factor. The observed decay constant (note: constant) is a key property belonging to a given nuclide, reflecting its particular instability and quantum circumstances in the nucleus; indeed, we can construct a sort of nuclear periodic table reflecting that pattern. What results from those properties is a quantifiable decay pattern that holds down to the individual atom but is best estimated from a population large enough that statistical fluctuations are minimised. That, in some ways, is not hard as even very small quantities easily have 10^11 - 10^17 atoms. A Mole being 6.023 * 10^23 atoms, we are looking at micro to pico moles here. What is more interesting is the principle of identity and its connexion to both cause and inductive, scientific reasoning: a thing is what it is i/l/o its core characteristics that mark it out as just that, distinct. So, we should not be surprised that such a thing has characteristic behaviours and properties that can be observed and inferred as likely to persist, providing reliable, observable patterns. KF PS: BTW, this is also why the common objection "it's only an analogy" runs into problems. A strong analogy builds on in-common properties between entities that share certain common characteristics (i.e. we focus on the genus and exclude the irrelevant differences) so if we correctly highlight how case A and case B instantiate a common genus G, we may quite properly expect B to reflect the characteristics of G just as much as A. A man, an elephant and a mouse are all mammals, a mouse and a fish are vertebrates, an elephant and a guava tree use cells that operate on much the same genetic code, etc.kairosfocus_{November 12, 2018
November
11
Nov
12
12
2018
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

Barry
I thought we measured time based on the oscillations of the cesium atom. I admit I am no expert.
After a bit of googling I think that you are correct and I am wrong. My apologies.Ed George_{November 12, 2018
November
11
Nov
12
12
2018
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

KF@151, can you really call it causal? If whether or not any atom decays is random, can it be causal? And, secondly, at what population size does it become non predictive? At what population size can it no longer be used to determine time?Ed George_{November 12, 2018
November
11
Nov
12
12
2018
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

I thought we measured time based on the oscillations of the cesium atom. I admit I am no expert.Barry Arrington_{November 12, 2018
November
11
Nov
12
12
2018
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

EG, that's because there is order in the randomness, tied to how the unstable nucleus behaves due to its particular nature. So, there is a characteristic lawlike decay constant, let's call it L. The half-life of a population of the nuclide is then Ln 2/ L. That order is a signature of causal factors at work tied to the specific nature and characteristics of the nuclide. KFkairosfocus_{November 12, 2018
November
11
Nov
12
12
2018
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Jdk
Radioactive decay is a random process. Look it up and study a bit.
I find it strange that something that is random (radioactive decay) is the tool we have used to establish a globally accepted measure of time.Ed George_{November 12, 2018
November
11
Nov
12
12
2018
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, excellent summary @148. Many there are who don't understand the significance of the term "causal conditions," which you just described in brief.StephenB_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

JDK, there are several flaws in your quantum example, illustrating how poorly we (including the highly educated) typically understand causality. First, were there no atom, no decay so cause no 1 is the presence of an atom with an unstable nucleus. Next, the instability is a causal factor, but one which does not act with inevitable force at some given time and place, i.e. we see risk or probability in action, here following a definite distribution. Third, in RA analysis, a typical behaviour pattern is a tunnelling effect, whereby a potential barrier is in effect porous not impermeable as in the classical world. That difference in behaviour has its own roots, which have causal import. So, yes we see an unpredictable random effect (at least, beyond a probability distribution reflected in the empirically reliable characteristic: half-life) but it does not come out of nowhere, nothing for no reason. KFkairosfocus_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Vivid
Furthermore to say something is random is not the same as saying “nothing “ caused it.
Right you are. Just because an event is not predictable does not mean that it was uncaused. Many quantum theorists stumble over that logical error. Perhaps, like JDK, they "choose" what they want to believe even if it makes no sense.StephenB_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

JDK If I was totally ignorant about quantum mechanics it would not matter one whit as to my position that one can be certain that to hold to the position that “ nothing” causes something is absurd and an abandonment of rationality. Yes I do know something about quantum mechanics but on a layman level from books such as “In Search of Schrodingers Cat” and other books written by people dumbing it down for people like myself. Your arrogance is palpable. Furthermore to say something is random is not the same as saying “nothing “ caused it. Vividvividbleau_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Oops: 142 was to Stephen. And vivid, quantum physics defies our rational understanding. Do you know much about it? Radioactive decay is a random process. Look it up and study a bit. And Feynman didn't mean that we don't know anything about quantum mechanics. He did as much as anyone to make quantum mechanics a useable field of study.jdk_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

JDK
re 133: please go back and read the start of 116, where I said that I know I didn’t respond to all your questions because I was out of time for the night. And twice I’ve said that you’ve broadened the topic considerably.
I didn’t broaden the topic. You are the one who denied ALL transcendent truths. So all that is on the table. You are repeating yourself.
As for your specific points: When I was discussing the nature of mathematics I was also discussing the nature of logic: the laws of logic are usually considering a foundational part of mathematics. I don’t want to write mathematics and logic all the time, and am not in the habit of doing so.
Mathematical principles are irrelevant to the discussion. Please stop trying to use them as a distraction.
The law of causality is not a law of logic: it is an inductive conclusion about how the world works. Where did I say that the law of causality is a law of logic? Please stop with the strawman arguments. Meanwhile, the law of causality is not an inductive conclusion about how the world works. It is a self-evident truth that makes inductive conclusions possible, just as the law of identity makes deductive conclusions possible. <blockquote?Events have causes.
You say that now, but I suspect you will reverse yourself in the remainder of the paragraph.
However, quantum mechanics has called this into question as the fundamental nature of the world. It is a solid conclusion that we all adopt, both informally and formally in science, but it not a law of logic.
There you go. First, you say that events have causes, then you say that some of them don’t. Just so that you will know, quantum mechanics cannot delegitimize the law of causality. It was the law of causality that made the discovery of quantum mechanics possible in the first place. It is only through the rules of right reason that evidence can be interpreted in a rational way. Anyone who thinks that the law of causality can be influenced by an experiment is interpreting evidence in an irrational way. JDK
If everything has a cause, and all causes can be traced back to prior causes, then the state of the universe at its inception complete determined everything that has happened since then, and I don’t think anyone thinks that these days.
Everything doesn’t have to have a cause. Everything that begins to exist or move must have a cause. Think back to your example of the goat path. First, it wasn’t there, and then it was. You know, therefore, that something caused it to come into existence. If you don’t know that, then you are not a rational person. The number of people who accept that proposition is irrelevant. Meanwhile, the law of causality does not determine everything that happens. Humans are causal agents themselves and use nature’s causes for their own purposes.StephenB_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

JDK “Quantum theory says nothing causes it to do so. “ “I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics” Richard Feynman Nice to know that JDK knows more than Feynman unless he has changed his mind since making that statement. Actually regardless of Feynman or anyone else for that matter I can safely say that to say “ nothing” causes something is absurd,it is the total abandonment of rationality. One doesn’t need to have a PHD in quantum physics to know this. Vividvividbleau_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Barry, you write,
Rational people understand that our “laws” are merely human descriptions of the law-like regularities that we find in nature, but the existence of those law-like regularities needs to be explained. The confusion is on the side of those who do not understand this.
First, my post was in reference to saying the world is "governed" by the laws. You seem to agree with me that that isn't very accurate language. Second, the fact that something, somehow caused the things in the world to behave in certain ways doesn't mean that the descriptions we discover have some independent transcendent existence. They are embedded in the behavior of the things that exist, irrespective of how those things got here.jdk_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

re 139, to Barry. I put a radioactive atom with a half life of one day in a box, which means that it has a 50-50 chance of decaying during the next day by emitting radiation. What causes it to decay when it does? Quantum theory says nothing causes it to do so. There are no hidden causes. It just decays, or fails to decay, at random.jdk_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Hi Scuzzaman. You wrote,
but that they are governed by something or someone with a commitment to rationality
, and I see now that the "commitment to rationality" was just meant to apply to the someone.
To say merely that “that is their nature” is neither description nor explanation. We remain insatiably curious as to why their nature is what it is? What IS causing them to behave in such ways? As others have noted, whatever it is, it exhibits a curiously convenient and consistent discoverability and describability."
Yes, what I wrote is certainly not an explanation. The question of why the universe is as it is - why do things behave as they do - is, I don't think, answerable, because how no matter how far down we create a chain of explanations, there is always the question of why are things like whatever the last link in the chain is? And, yes, it is does exhibit a "consistent discoverability and describability", except that perhaps we have reached the limit of that with quantum mechanics.jdk_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Readers take notice. At comment 134 JDK has finally and completely abandoned rationality altogether. Can something happen without a cause? JDK: Maybe. SA
I conclude that it is pointless for me to continue to repeat such things. JDK insists on making his point known. He is proclaiming his view and will continue to do that no matter what the response is to that view. That game ends in sadness – at the recognition of waste.
Avicenna speaks to the only appropriate response to such.Barry Arrington_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

JDK
I know (with virtual certainty ???? ) that most of you here won’t agree with this, but one of the reasons I am here in these conversations is to give myself a forum for describing some alternate views, with the purpose, among other things, of countering the sense of certainty that seems so prevalent. Anyway …
It is a perfectly legitimate goal. However, you will never achieve it because your hyperskepticism militates against the truth.
The Platonic, dualistic view idea that if there are laws there must be a lawgiver is a traditional Western view, but it is only one of two broadly different views. The other view is that the world behaves as it does according to its nature, and then we describe that behavior mathematically and logically. The laws are descriptive only: they don’t exist independent of nature, and they have no causal power.
The “laws” are human descriptions of law-like regularities in nature, which are real and are, themselves caused. They didn’t always exist because the natural world didn’t always exist.
The idea that if there are laws there must be a lawgiver is an anthropomorphism that confuses a cause with a description.
Incorrect. Rational people understand that our “laws” are merely human descriptions of the law-like regularities that we find in nature, but the existence of those law-like regularities needs to be explained. The confusion is on the side of those who do not understand this.
Here is an analogy (just an analogy) that a philosopher friend many years ago used to explain this. We watch goats going up a mountainside and we say, “Look, the goats are following the path” as if the path were the cause of the route the goats were taking. However, in reality, the path is there because the goats made it. The cause of the path is the goats: the path is merely a reflection of the goat’s nature, not the cause of it.
Good analogy – bad logic. Of course, the goat caused the path, and of course, the path is merely a reflection of the goat’s nature. (A correct metaphysical analysis). The point is that if we observe a path, and nothing else, the law of causality (which you deny) teaches us that someone or something had to put it there. (A correct epistemological analysis). In like manner, if we observe law-like regularities in nature, that same law of causality tells us that a lawgiver put it there. Just as goat paths are not responsible for their own existence, law-like regularities are not responsible for their own existence. Again, you are confusing metaphysics (reasoning from the cause to the effect) with epistemology (inferring the cause from the effect).
From this view, then, it is incorrect to say that world “follows”, or “is governed by” laws.
The physical world (not the world as a whole) is governed by law-like regularities described as laws. Obviously, the descriptions have no causal power. No one thinks that they do. This is a strawman argument.StephenB_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

SB:
All these irrational positions of yours need to be made explicit and put on the table.
Good luck with that. I've been trying to get him to admit the logic of his commitments for several days over several posts. He refuses every time. You see, in his subjective morality, dodging the logic of your premises is not dishonest and/or cowardly. It is perfectly reasonable and just.Barry Arrington_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

kf
JDK, again, you do not engage the corrective chain of reasoning which is laid out above.
Agreed, and I conclude that it is pointless for me to continue to repeat such things. JDK insists on making his point known. He is proclaiming his view and will continue to do that no matter what the response is to that view. He is saying "there are alternatives". Of course. Sophistry always provides alternatives. That's the classic denial, avoidance, escape from reality that is at the foundation of relativism. I've seen discussions with relativists who deny the objectivity of mathematics. It's a childish game - with no end. There is no serious commitment to follow the truth, but rather to use up the valuable time of one's life, chasing fantasies. That game ends in sadness - at the recognition of waste. A man's life must be given to a serious commitment to the truth - no matter how much it costs. He must put himself on the side of good - in the battle of good versus evil. Subjectivism damages a man's character and integrity. It is a fear of commitment and responsibility. Holding on to doubts in matters that demand an affirmation - creates a spirit of fear and weakness. The modern world today does this to many men - creating doubts about everything. Skepticism means they cannot make a commitment. This frees them from responsibility - making life a matter of amusement, following one's own passions, playing foolish games, sitting on the sidelines of life and making wry comments about what is happening. The danger to every man (I suffer it) - is selfishness. Subjectivism is the philosophy of self-interest above all else. Virtue is when we make a sacrifice for something greater than ourself. That is not even possible in subjectivism - everything is turned inwards. The source of all authority, meaning and value is trapped within one's own flawed personality. It cannot contribute anything to values or the common good - since it denies both of those. Materialists who claim to "find their own purpose" - are just selfishly giving to themselves. There is no valor in that kind of life. The so-called 'purpose' in that life is amusement, enjoyment, self-pleasure. It created the generation of soy-boys, cucks, beta-males and effeminates that are destroying our society today. That's what atheism is. Self-satisfied little boys who don't want to grow-up. The answer is not pagan stoicism or atheistic will to power - which are just modifications of the same self-idolatry. It's Christian virtue - lived in its integrity. Yes, consistent with classical moral teachings, but far surpassing them.Silver Asiatic_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

JDK; you wrote: "The laws are descriptive only: they don’t exist independent of nature, and they have no causal power." You can, as you note, understand it either way. Even amongst fundamentalist Christians there's the recognition that there exists a progression in maturity from law-as-prohibition to law-as-descriptor-of-ideal. "The idea that if there are laws there must be a lawgiver is an anthropomorphism that confuses a cause with a description." Perhaps. Just to clarify, when I wrote: ... but that they are governed by something or someone with a commitment to rationality which is implied by the ubiquity of such rigorously consistent relationships, appears to me to be very likely. ... it was only the someone that I intended to describe as rational, not the something. It's rather elementary to note that the inverse square law doesn't cause the field strength to decline by the inverse square of the distance from the source. But noting that doesn't relieve us of the suspicion that something causes all known things to behave in relation to each other according to strict methematically-describable patterns. To say merely that "that is their nature" is neither description nor explanation. We remain insatiably curious as to why their nature is what it is? What IS causing them to behave in such ways? As others have noted, whatever it is, it exhibits a curiously convenient and consistent discoverability and describability.ScuzzaMan_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

re 133: please go back and read the start of 116, where I said that I know I didn't respond to all your questions because I was out of time for the night. And twice I've said that you've broadened the topic considerably. As for your specific points: When I was discussing the nature of mathematics I was also discussing the nature of logic: the laws of logic are usually considering a foundational part of mathematics. I don't want to write mathematics and logic all the time, and am not in the habit of doing so. The law of causality is not a law of logic: it is an inductive conclusion about how the world works. Events have causes. However, quantum mechanics has called this into question as the fundamental nature of the world. It is a solid conclusion that we all adopt, both informally and formally in science, but it not a law of logic. The law of infinite regress is even more problematic. If some things can happen without cause at the quantum level, and then set off a chain of events, then the law of infinite regress is false. If everything has a cause, and all causes can be traced back to prior causes, then the state of the universe at its inception complete determined everything that has happened since then, and I don't think anyone thinks that these days.jdk_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

JDK
I wrote a post (116) about whether mathematical truths are transcendent or not, and explained that whatever the nature of their truth, that is different than the question of moral truths.
I didn't ask you about mathematics. Why on earth would you waste almost three hundred words on such an irrelevant distraction?
I pointed out (@116) that the whole question of logic, math, and mathematical descriptions of the physical world broadened the topic considerably. Perhaps you wrote 118 before you saw 116.
I am responding to your claim that transcendent truths, either the metaphysical or moral variety, do not exist and cannot, therefor be known. The laws of identity, non-contradiction, causality, and non-infinite regress are all transcendent truths. So according to your stated philosophy, we cannot know any of these rational principles as metaphysical truths because they simply do not exist. Also, according to that same philosophy, you don't know if any moral actions are wrong for everyone, so it follows that you don't know if the particular act of torturing babies for fun is wrong for everyone. All these irrational positions of yours need to be made explicit and put on the table. My aim is not to harass you but to awaken you from your intellectual slumber so that you can join the community of rational people. I am not your enemy. I am your friend.StephenB_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

JDK, again, you do not engage the corrective chain of reasoning which is laid out above. Putting on a label, "Platonic" and saying that in effect you can pose an alternative does not sufficiently address the issue of warrant that is on the table; a point we duly note, observing the significance of this i/l/o things like the false declarations and threats about being ill equipped for higher studies and the world of work by the US NAS and NSTA in Kansas c 2005 -- this is not just of mere academic interest. And, the world in fact is ordered by intelligible ordering principles. In reasoning, including Mathematics, we have that once a particular world is, identity must obtain. Thus we see that distinct identity is framework for a world to exist, with immediate corollaries that as W = {A|~A} then no x in W will be both A and ~A, likewise any x in W must be A X-OR ~A, LNC and LEM. This grounds both logic and quantity, with structure following behind, i.e. Mathematics. Going towards the duty side, your arguments inevitably pivot on our having a known duty to truth, right reason, fairness etc. Should this be delusional, you inject grand delusion, utterly undermining rationality and Mathematics. A proof or assumption that proofs do not exist undercuts itself. We are forced to acknowledge the reality of moral government of our mindedness, pointing to the IS-OUGHT gap and the question of bridging it. I therefore again point you to 102 where this is drawn out in outline: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/materialist-perhaps-reaches-new-low/#comment-668174 KFkairosfocus_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Scuzzaman writes,
So far, everything we have been able to examine in the physical world, either directly or by strong inference from direct observations, follows peculiarly exacting and (apparently) universal mathematical relationships. That these things are governed by such abstracts is highly dubious, to my mind, but that they are governed by something or someone with a commitment to rationality which is implied by the ubiquity of such rigorously consistent relationships, appears to me to be very likely.
Irrespective of the question of whether abstract ideals can govern, or whether "something or someone with a commitment to rationality" is required, I'd like to discuss the issue of whether the mathematical and logical laws of nature we discover "govern" the world. I know (with virtual certainty :-) ) that most of you here won't agree with this, but one of the reasons I am here in these conversations is to give myself a forum for describing some alternate views, with the purpose, among other things, of countering the sense of certainty that seems so prevalent. Anyway ... The Platonic, dualistic view idea that if there are laws there must be a lawgiver is a traditional Western view, but it is only one of two broadly different views. The other view is that the world behaves as it does according to its nature, and then we describe that behavior mathematically and logically. The laws are descriptive only: they don't exist independent of nature, and they have no causal power. The idea that if there are laws there must be a lawgiver is an anthropomorphism that confuses a cause with a description. Here is an analogy (just an analogy) that a philosopher friend many years ago used to explain this. We watch goats going up a mountainside and we say, "Look, the goats are following the path" as if the path were the cause of the route the goats were taking. However, in reality, the path is there because the goats made it. The cause of the path is the goats: the path is merely a reflection of the goat's nature, not the cause of it. From this view, then, it is incorrect to say that world "follows", or "is governed by" laws. It is correct that we can describe the world with such "laws", but the world is internally governed by its components manifesting their nature, not by any external laws being imposed on them.jdk_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

jdk
However, the other school of thought is that mathematical structure is embedded in our universe–immanent not transcendent
As KF points out, the Law of Identity cannot be immanent to the universe. It cannot be secondary to the universe and must exist outside of it, transcendent. The LOI governs the identity of the universe. That law is the foundation of reason. The laws of reason are transcendent therefore.Silver Asiatic_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

At 118, Stephen ended his post with "In every case, concerning metaphysical and moral truths, all we can do is simply make a choice about what we want to believe. Have I represented your positions fairly?" No.jdk_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Anticipating an objection also ... There should be consequences. If you violate the law of gravity (falling off building), the consequence is that you die. If you violate the laws of math, your physical products dependent on math will fail. What happens if you violate the natural moral law? What are the consequences? Well - just like math ... you can say 2+2=5. I just did it. Where is the consequence? The consequences of math errors show up most distinctly on the larger-scale. When constructing aircraft or weapons or buildings. Violations of the moral law show up on the larger scale also. Genocide, dictatorships, starvation.Silver Asiatic_{November 11, 2018
November
11
Nov
11
11
2018
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply