Physics and the contemplation of nothing

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 10, 2017

Culture, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, News, Physics}

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

In a review of Void: The Strange Physics of Nothing by James Owen Weatherall, Steven Poole writes at Spectator (UK):

In an action-packed epilogue, the author describes how the contested field of string theory posits a bogglingly large number of possible kinds of nothingness, and impresses upon the reader how much of physics still depends on intuition and battling ‘interpretations’. The book is not an exhaustive typology of scientific nothings: not directly addressed, for example, is the nothingness that supposedly obtained before the Big Bang. But to regret this is just to emphasise the success of this stylishly written and admirably concise book, at the end of which you will be inclined to agree, along with the author and Freddie Mercury both, that ‘Nothing really matters.’More.

String theory leads physics down the bramble patch of unacknowledged metaphysics.

See also: Multiverse explains why progress in fundamental physics is slow?

and

Must we understand “nothing” to understand physics?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

DS, the issue on defining second is real, and counting stages gets around it. The second issue is in the end one of coherent meaning. An infinite actual past entails that there was some I, once present but now past through causally linked succession to I+1, I+2 etc, until it reaches the present, P. Where, for the past stage I to be infinitely remote, the I in question has to be transfinitely many stages antecedent to P. This is an issue of the meaning of claiming an infinite actual temporal past. My concern then is, time by inherent nature proceeds in causally successive stages, so for this to be the case an actual traversal of the transfinite in steps would have to happen. But that cannot be done in finite stage steps and so we are not warranted to hold that any actually transfinitely remote point I ever existed. Even more strongly, were an I to have existed and succeeded in succession to P, that I necessarily will not have been transfinitely remote: finite traversal is possible, as opposed to transfinite. The stepwise, finite stage traversal of the transfinite fails. KFkairosfocus_{March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

KF, Well, if you don't want to discuss time intervals, there still is the issue of demonstrating that an infinite past entails the existence of these causal chains where some particular stage occurred infinitely many links prior to some later stage. We have the same dispute, only with "seconds" replaced with "stages". The tapes argument doesn't prove these causal chains must exist in an infinite past. Clearly one tape can be put into one-to-one correspondence with any "tail" of the other tape, starting at any position k, but how you infer that means there exists some cell infinitely far from the end is a mystery. Have you ever read such an argument in a philosophy, mathematics, or logic book? Have you ever encountered an axiom or principle anywhere which justifies this step?daveS_{March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

DS, try to define what a second means in a pre-BB world in which perhaps Cesium atoms do not exist [as in so many cycles of a line in the spectrum of], as just one consideration as to why I do not speak in terms of our standard time units. I am therefore looking at a broader index of temporality, causally connected succession of stages of finite duration, each of which is the present in turn. Then, we can apply a count to that succession. Onward, we can look at the more central issues. KFkairosfocus_{March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

KF,
DS, I am not counting seconds but stages of causally connected development. I am not sure that we can reasonably equate time as we measure it to whatever preceded the big bang, but there is usually some sort of quasi-physical causally successive temporal ordering that would be on the table with things like before and after in a grand sense — simultaneity is a big issue with relativity on the table, but the BB type model gives us some sort of framework. I am saying that at some point I, before that finitely remote point, if there were a truly infinite past, I would once have been present and would now be infinitely past as further causally successive states have followed as the present then receded into the past.
Am I interpreting this correctly: Assuming an infinite past, you do not now claim that there must have been some moment in the past (by some clock's reckoning) which elapsed an infinite number of seconds before the present? And in fact you are not claiming that it would be inconsistent for the past to be infinite, yet all time intervals measured between points in the past to be finite? How about all this applied to space? Could the universe be infinite in space, yet all distances measured between spatial locations be finite?daveS_{March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

DS, I am not counting seconds but stages of causally connected development. I am not sure that we can reasonably equate time as we measure it to whatever preceded the big bang, but there is usually some sort of quasi-physical causally successive temporal ordering that would be on the table with things like before and after in a grand sense -- simultaneity is a big issue with relativity on the table, but the BB type model gives us some sort of framework. I am saying that at some point I, before that finitely remote point, if there were a truly infinite past, I would once have been present and would now be infinitely past as further causally successive states have followed as the present then receded into the past. The current present, we inhabit. In effect, counting stages, we could start the pink tape at I and continue thereafter forever, counting or marking stages that were successively once the present. Beyond I we can count up to some large but finite point, I +k. Then, in succession I + (k+1), I + (k+2) etc. lay alongside the imagined blue tape at k, so that we see k as a new reference point. The second tape can count alongside, displaced by k. Given the endlessness from I, neither would be able to exhaust the endlessness in steps to get to P. In short there is no finite value Q such that Q+1 = P, the endlessness beyond I cannot be traversed. this can be seen by putting say a purple tape at k + j (j very large but finite) and starting afresh, with endlessness still beyond. The same can then be done with the purple tape as with pink and blue, etc to any degree we please. An endless succession cannot be exhausted in successive causally linked, finite stage steps. KFkairosfocus_{March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, for the sake of argument I represented the counting numbers as a thought exercise involving pink and blue tapes endless to the right. That has no implication such can be actualised physically, not least they would require infinite material resources.
Yes, I think we all understand we are discussing a thought experiment, not an actual physical tape of infinite length.
And yet, were there such an infinite past, it MUST require that there is some I that was once the present which then causally led to I+1 as the successor present, then +2 etc across a transfinite span to the big bang and on and on to the current present P.
Hm. How remote in the past is this I? Infinitely ("endlessly") remote, correct? That is, in an infinite past, there must have existed some point I in time such that I is separated from the present by an infinite number of seconds. Are we agreed that your position includes this assertion? One can check simply by scrolling upward a few posts. If we are in agreement on that point, how would you rephrase this assertion about time in terms of the tapes thought experiment? Specifically, how would your rephrasing differ significantly from my P' from above?daveS_{March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

DS, for the sake of argument I represented the counting numbers as a thought exercise involving pink and blue tapes endless to the right. That has no implication such can be actualised physically, not least they would require infinite material resources. My further point has been significantly different from what you just represented. Namely, the implication of a claimed actual traversal of the transfinite span requires completing the stepwise traversal of such an imaginary tape or the equivalent as a sequence. What I have vigorously argued is that such a stepwise successive traversal is not actualisable in a temporally linked stage by stage causal world; I even spoke of the fallacy of using an imagined stepwise process to traverse and so end the endless. I then highlighted that the claim of an infinite actual temporal, causally connected step by step cumulative past clearly requires such a traversal, most recently representable as . . . I, I+1, I+2, --> . . . P, where the ellipses involves traversing the transfinite in finite stage steps; I focus on the second ellipsis. I conclude such is not possible and conclude that we are only warranted to speak of a finite past, an infinite one implying an impossible traversal. And yet, were there such an infinite past, it MUST require that there is some I that was once the present which then causally led to I+1 as the successor present, then +2 etc across a transfinite span to the big bang and on and on to the current present P. This is contrary to the logic of structure and quantity and so is to be regarded as falsified. There was no I, the picture of an infinite past is one of those things we can say in words and perhaps imagine vaguely but once we analyse on relevant logic of structure and quantity, vanishes as a mirage. To find the necessary being root of current physical reality, we must look beyond a space-time causally successive order. Eternity stares us in the face. KFkairosfocus_{March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

LocalMinimum, I don't think I quite understand your post, specifically the part about the word "preassigned". Maybe if I just state what I believe the import of the word to be in this context it will help. The Turing machine tape is infinite because if you give me any positive integer n first, as a sort of "challenge", I can find two cells in the tape which are separated by more than n steps. n is "preassigned" because you chose it first, and then I have a chance to search through the tape for cells at least n + 1 steps apart. This is opposed to the situation where I have to choose two cells first, and then you can choose some finite value second. If in your last paragraph you're referring to a "beginning point" of an infinite past, then I affirm that such a thing does not exist in the picture I have in mind. People have written about some very bizarre topologies for time, so I'm not saying such a thing is impossible, but I am thinking about an infinite past modeled along the lines of the negative real numbers, or some subset thereof.daveS_{March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

daveS: I suppose it would hinge on your definition of "preassigned". I would assume in the most common fashion, any Natural number is assigned a value based on its order, which pretty much reduces it to your "basic" divergent countable infinity; but, again, that assumes the definition of "preassigned". Now, assuming a standard divergent countable infinity, if we play with sequences of Natural numbers, we can take away a finite number of elements and still have an infinite sequence. The problem is, in my experience, you have to take away from the beginning, with a finite sequence; or in intervals throughout, with infinite subsequences that similarly diverge. Therefore, referencing a position at or past any sort of infinity seems impossible from my limited point of view. However, insisting on access to an absolute "origin" rather than a local one, i.e. a "starting point", from the midst of infinity is a similar pickle. If you can reference a starting point finitely, I would expect you aren't in the midst of infinity...Well, not a countable infinity, at least, as you can slap around infinities within infinities nice and discretely within the Reals. It's all in the sauce.LocalMinimum_{March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Latemarch,
It was obvious that P’ was false. Any two particular cells are a finite distance apart.
I agree with you that P' is false! KF on the other hand has argued quite vigorously that P' is true if the tape is indeed infinite.daveS_{March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

DS, P: Given any positive integer n, there exist two cells in the tape separated by a distance greater than n steps. P’: There exists a particular cell C in the tape that is at infinite distance from the first (leftmost) cell. It was obvious that P' was false. Any two particular cells are a finite distance apart. As soon as you identify the cells you no longer have an infinite series. I was more interested in how you smuggled that in. That is why I bolded the word two in P. While P is within the bounds of English as true the word two implies particularity thus connecting it in the mind to the two particular cells in P'. As for Ezio Vailati who seems to declare that the past has always been infinite (because you cannot become infinte). That neatly avoids the fact that time has a direction. I will not ascribe possible motivations to you. You either knew of the category error in the P,P' proposition statements or did not.Latemarch_{March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

KF, Sorry, my parser threw a rod about halfway through your post. I will say I'm not claiming there is "warrant for asserting an actually infinite quasi-physical, causally connected, temporally successive past that advances in finite stage steps to the present". I simply maintain that these anti-infinite-past arguments being discussed fail. Here is the issue which I believe is the crux of the matter, referring to the image of the Turing machine tape I posted above. Consider the following two properties that the tape could conceivably satisfy. The first is literally the dictionary definition of "infinite", applied to the present situation.
P: Given any positive integer n, there exist two cells in the tape separated by a distance greater than n steps. P': There exists a particular cell C in the tape that is at infinite distance from the first (leftmost) cell.
My question is: If the tape satisfies P, must it then satisfy P'?daveS_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

DS, it seems we are going back to the exchanges of a bit over a year past (this is after another blackout, BTW). I should point out that to say that any arbitrarily remote past time A, will have an onward earlier limitless span of even earlier times in the causal chain first implies that we can only give finite values of the past time, which itself is a clue. That is, we can only ever specify a finite past time, even when we give an arbitrary symbol A. Further, that there is an onward infinite further past [for argument] beyond A, or -- more relevantly -- I as used above does not eliminate the challenge of spanning I to P in finite stage, successive steps I + 1, I + 2 etc to reach P. Where the "etc" hides a requirement of traversing the transfinite -- the endless -- in steps. Where, please recall, that on your view I was once the present, with the world in some sort of quasi-physical causally and temporally successive order that gives rise to a successor stage I + 1 that CAUSALLY emerges from I and succeeds it as the next present, and so forth down to our time and world today, P. And yes, this imposes the challenge of advancing from some definite value I to the transfinite beyond I, a POSITIVE transfinite, where such an advance is inherently of character starting and going upwards in the positive integer chain, as can be labelled. It is patent that such a spanning cannot occur, as any I + k will be such that we go I + (k+1), I + (k+2) etc, where we could as well just start at k, then go on up, or we could just as well start at 0 again and go on up. Spanning the transfinite or endless in finite successive steps is a doomed exercise. The logic of structure and quantity is telling us that where quantities here speak of past times to the present, the causal, successive nature of the past so constrains the circumstance that we are not warranted to assert an infinite actualised past for the world. Where, of course such a past could stretch beyond the big bang and still be finite. There is no warrant for asserting an actually infinite quasi-physical, causally connected, temporally successive past that advances in finite stage steps to the present. KFkairosfocus_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

LocalMinimum, This is the definition we used in a previous thread:
infinite: extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large - infinite number of positive numbers
which is consistent with the usage on the philosopher's page. The condition requires only that given any finite value (say any positive integer n), there exist points in the past separated by more than n years, seconds, whatever your favorite unit of time. We also referred to the illustration of an infinite tape, such as that using in Turing machines. The question became: Does such an infinite tape necessarily have two cells separated by an infinite distance (i.e., by an infinite number of cells)? Before I give my answer, what do you think?daveS_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

daveS, If there isn't an infinitely remote point in the past, then all points are finitely accessible? But then it wouldn't be infinite? You highlighted no infinite negative number implying there's no infinitely past year. Note that if I subtract any finite number from infinity, it remains infinite; otherwise it would be the sum of what I subtracted and the difference, which would be finite. If the meaning is that infinities are reducible to finite intervals...well, sure, but then you're dealing with infinite intervals between. If it's to make an absurdity out of an infinite history...well, the absurdity would lie on imposing the limits of human cognition on reality, not in reality's "failure" to yield to human cognition. If it's none of the above, I await your correction.LocalMinimum_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

KF,
If there was an infinite actual past, it necessarily requires that there were times/stages I and P such that I causally led to I + 1, I + 2 etc, which are endlessly — transfinitely — remote from P, the present, and such that the increments onward +1, +2, etc past I are an actually completed infinite succession. Otherwise, you contradict in terms so that you mean in the end there was no real-world, actually infinite causally successive temporal past.
Well, that's certainly not true by definition. Virtually all those who write on this subject do not take "an infinite past" to mean a past in which there must exist a point infinitely remote in the past. For example, see this web page owned by philosopher Ezio Vailati (some formatting changed):
2. The past is infinite iff (if and only if) there is an infinite number of same length intervals, e.g., years, before the present one, e.g.: 0 (present year), −1, −2, −3 (year),... . NOTE: in order to avoid confusion, it's important to keep in mind the following points:
* The qualification “of same length” is somewhat more restrictive than necessary. What must be ruled out are intervals which became small fast enough to prevent going back to infinity. For example, if the first interval is 1/2 year, the second 1/4 year, etc., one cannot go back past one year ago. * Since there's no negative infinite number, there's no infinitely past year or earliest year. * Each year is separated from any other by a finite number of years (remember that there's no first year). * There never was a time when the past became infinite because no set can become infinite by adding any finite number of members. So, if the past is infinite, then it has always been infinite.

daveS_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

DS, the world unfolds in causally linked, temporally successive stages. If there was an infinite actual past, it necessarily requires that there were times/stages I and P such that I causally led to I + 1, I + 2 etc, which are endlessly -- transfinitely -- remote from P, the present, and such that the increments onward +1, +2, etc past I are an actually completed infinite succession. Otherwise, you contradict in terms so that you mean in the end there was no real-world, actually infinite causally successive temporal past. I am quite content to state the implication and draw out the absurdity, as no successive sequence of cumulative, finite stage steps can actually complete, step by step, an endless span. KFkairosfocus_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

KF@9, 10 and 11. That is a lot of words and links, but it is a tangent and distraction to what was actually being responded to. To remind you:
Understanding the ideological agenda also helps us understand the mindset of many objectors. KF
I can probably be classified as an objector to ID. So, how do you presume to understand what my idiological agenda is? I don't presume to claim to understand what your idiological agenda is, let alone comment on it. I may have my own opinions about it but it would be pure speculation. I prefer not to deal in speculation.Armand Jacks_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

DS, with all due respect evasive and inviting of dismissive projections. There is a kulturkampf in progress, it is now leading to riotous assemblies in the streets. The worldview engine that drives what is happening is the utterly destructive and pervasive, entrenched, powerful influence of radically secularist evolutionary materialist scientism and its fellow traveller ideologies and agendas [--> note this emphasis on a key distinction] that feed on its self-referential incoherence, its amorality and radical relativism, leading to a long rising tide of nihilisms that operate on the premise that might and manipulation make 'truth,' 'knowledge,' 'right,' 'rights,' 'news,' 'education,' 'justice,' 'law,' 'history,' etc etc. The impacts are so direct, so dominant and so utterly ruinous -- starting with the ongoing holocaust of posterity of 800+ millions in 40+ years, mounting up at a million more per week -- that we no longer have the luxury of ignoring or imagining we are neutral bystanders etc: s/he who does not stand up to fight against the onrushing destructive tide is now a part of the problem, regardless of what s/he may wish. Just as in the 1930's and 40's with Nazism. This pattern drives much of what happens in and around UD. KFkairosfocus_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

KF,
Predictably, we will see implications of actually completed infinite successive, stepwise causal chains to date, backed up by distractions such as that at every point we identify a past infinity would already exist and attempts to deny or dismiss that implying such an infinite actual past requires that there be real world times that are endlessly separated and yet succeeded from the one to the other in finite stage successive steps, and more. When, it is readily seen that no such finite stage process can actually complete an endless span as beyond any kth step, there is a k+1, k+2, etc. onward, i.e. we can just as well call k = 0 and begin again, never able to span endlessness in steps.
If you want to revisit that topic, you could start a dedicated thread. (Or maybe right here? This thread is vaguely related). Oddly enough, this very issue was what I had in mind in my first post in this thread. I simply believe that your argument involving the tapes is unsound. That's it. No further agenda or motive.daveS_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

KF,
DS, the issue is not whether an agenda of evolutionary materialistic scientism exists, despite its utterly irretrievable self-refutation and its indefensible amorality, the issue is whether we deal with knowing principals with great influence, or fellow travellers, or enablers, activists and unknowing foot-soldiers in front groups every inch comparable to Lenin’s useful idiots. I leave categorisation to you, as to which group(s) you belong to.
If only :) The issue for me is simply that it is an error to ascribe motives or beliefs to someone who does not hold them. And it does happen from time to time here.daveS_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

harry, pardon the sidebar above. The focal issue of non-being is in fact the core of where the worldviews of evolutionary materialism etc break apart in utter incoherence as worldview platforms. Predictably, we will see implications of actually completed infinite successive, stepwise causal chains to date, backed up by distractions such as that at every point we identify a past infinity would already exist and attempts to deny or dismiss that implying such an infinite actual past requires that there be real world times that are endlessly separated and yet succeeded from the one to the other in finite stage successive steps, and more. When, it is readily seen that no such finite stage process can actually complete an endless span as beyond any kth step, there is a k+1, k+2, etc. onward, i.e. we can just as well call k = 0 and begin again, never able to span endlessness in steps. To ground temporal reality we need a root of being of a different, eternal, necessary order. Mix in that we are morally governed and we see that such needs to also be an IS capable of grounding OUGHT, requiring some pretty strong characteristics. That's why the only serious candidate has been the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our manifest nature. If one challenges this, simply put forward another candidate that does not at once collapse in absurdity: _________ . The ancient Hebrews, unknowingly, were way ahead of their time in worldviews, logical, physical and mathematical terms when they reported that God spoke to Moshe and said I AM THAT I AM. KFkairosfocus_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

PPS: Plato long ago pointed to the amorality and radical relativism that invite nihilism:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

PS: let me cite Pearcey on the self-referential incoherence of epistemologies tied to evolutionary materialism:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” 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.
[--> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]
kairosfocus_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

DS, the issue is not whether an agenda of evolutionary materialistic scientism exists, despite its utterly irretrievable self-refutation and its indefensible amorality, the issue is whether we deal with knowing principals with great influence, or fellow travellers, or enablers, activists and unknowing foot-soldiers in front groups every inch comparable to Lenin's useful idiots. I leave categorisation to you, as to which group(s) you belong to. In the end, given the locus of power and civilisationally ruinous force of the agenda [long since pointed out by Heine in the 1830's and too often manifested ever since], it makes little difference to the outcome. KFkairosfocus_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

AJ: Agendas? Try this, first, as summarised by Richard Lewontin (now that we have power back for 1/2 hr or so, so far):
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
And, should that seem idiosyncratic to you, here -- as a formal case in point, duly passed and met with no significant repudiation (but used, e.g. to impose an ideologically loaded and historically unwarranted redefinition of science in education, one hailed by the major media and talking heads) is the board of the US National Science Teachers:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.
That there is a new magisterium imposing an a priori, ruthlessly determined agenda of evolutionary materialism wherever it can, is beyond reasonable doubt. KFkairosfocus_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

DaveS:
What I should have said is that other posters have told me directly what my thoughts/motives are, incorrectly as it happened.
You must have been talking about subjective morality.Armand Jacks_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

AJ, That could be, of course. Reading my previous post, I actually should amend it:
I can affirm that some posters here apparently believe they understand our/my “mindset”
What I should have said is that other posters have told me directly what my thoughts/motives are, incorrectly as it happens.daveS_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

DaveS:
In the same vein, as a sometime objector, I can affirm that some posters here apparently believe they understand our/my “mindset” when they in fact are actually way off.
Sadly, I think this is a tactic more than it is an actual belief. Some here even go as far as quoting an objector's comment and then start their response with "Translation:...". An obvious attempt to ascribe words or intention to the objector that any rational person could see are not justified by what the objector actually said.Armand Jacks_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

AJ, In the same vein, as a sometime objector, I can affirm that some posters here apparently believe they understand our/my "mindset" when they in fact are actually way off. I know I could fall into this trap just as easily, so I try not to assume I have access to anyone else's thoughts or motives unless they have stated them explicitly here.daveS_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply