And there you have it!

_{William Dembski

August 23, 2009

Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science}

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

Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

YouTube Source

Comments

---Rob: "You stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused.” I wrote: ”In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event.” Not at all the same. Either you have a problem with reading comprehension, are dishonest, or are playing some kind of game. [I haven't ruled out the third option, but it doesn't matter in any case. I resent the waste of time] ---"Perhaps the clearest way to address it is to ask StephenB a question: What is the difference between a spontaneous and non-spontaneous event?" Sorry, no reprieve until I get an apology. No more wasted space.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
You stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused.” You are lying. I made no such statement.
This is the heart of the matter. Perhaps the clearest way to address it is to ask StephenB a question: What is the difference between a spontaneous and non-spontaneous event? I'll continue after the answer is given.R0b_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

It's starting to get hot in here. StephenB has upped the stakes by accusing me of lying. I'll respond to those accusations, and some of the lesser ones as well. I don't have time to respond to everything.
Rob ignored my explanation [no change in substance] as if it had not even been written.
I quoted StephenB's explanation and responded: That necessary conditions allow an event to occur without necessarily forcing it to occur has never been in dispute. Your restatement says nothing about whether an event can occur without sufficient conditions, which is the point at issue. How is that ignoring his explanation as if it had not even been written?
He ignored that as well.
I showed formally that the first sentence of the paragraph does not follow from the preceding paragraph. If that's ignoring, I wish StephenB would ignore us in like manner.
Rob, on the other hand, claimed that I had contradicted the same man that quoted me. I posted that discussion, by the way on this thread. Did Rob apologize for that lie?
Now we're to the accusations of lying. Contrary, to StephenB's accusation, I showed the contradiction.
Rob simply ignored that issue as well.
What issue? That StephenB and kairosfocus expressed agreement with each other? Is StephenB under the impression that expressions of agreement refute claims of contradiction? If not, then what was I supposed to address on this?
Rob is confused about the fact that you can have a necessary cause without an event, but you cannot have an event without a necessary cause.
False. I have never said anything that implies that I'm confused on the above. Stephen "Everyone-on-this-site-knows-that-I-can-back-up-anything-that-I-say" B cannot even begin to back that up.
Thus, his little foray into symbolic logic, cannot convey that subtlety, at least he is not capable of making the translation.
If StephenB wants to include this "subtlety" as an additional premise and see if he comes up with a different conclusion, he is welcome to try it. But the fact is that every line of the argument will remain valid. I'm sure that StephenB knows how to refute a formal argument, namely, you either show which step does not follow from the preceding steps, or you falsify the premise(s). Why he hasn't done so is up to the readers, if any, to divine. - to be continued -R0b_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "anything that responds to the observation that your assertion that “every cause has an effect” is tautological compels the conclusion that “every effect has a cause” is also tautological." ANYTHING THAT RESPONDS? Listen to the chant: The laws of logic are tautologies---the laws of logic are tautologies--the laws of logic are tautologies. Causation comes and goes--caustion comes and goes--causation comes and goes.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "It is entertaining to observe my words (and the words of others) so quickly morph beyond recognition at your hands, before our very eyes – which is really where I came in on this thread. All those references to a broken “promise” (and you seem so hurt) harken back to my suggestion that if you had a sharper accusation, “then we’d have something to discuss.” Get some therapy. Oh, I see. What you really meant was that we can discuss it unless I actually ask you to follow through. Your whole point was to suggest that my formulations were unanswerable on my terms but if you could only put it in your own words, then you could summon up sufficient courage to defend your irrational proposition. Clearly, you are the one in need of therapy---and an injection of intellectual courage--and an injection of intellectual honesty. The bluff continues.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 123 (and above):
You ignored your own implied promise...You promised that you would defend your irrational position just once, and my respectful tone was contingent on the anticipation that you would follow through with that promise...you slink away from your own promise ...Why should I respect the intellectual timidity that will not keep its own implied promise? ...while he refuses to provide straight answers to straight questions, and even failed to follow through on his own promise that he would answer his own reframing of my questions...You promised to defend the proposition that you can, at the same time, remain rational and disavow causality..
It is entertaining to observe my words (and the words of others) so quickly morph beyond recognition at your hands, before our very eyes - which is really where I came in on this thread. All those references to a broken "promise" (and you seem so hurt) harken back to my suggestion that if you had a sharper accusation, "then we'd have something to discuss." Get some therapy. Meanwhile, absent from your response is: - anything that responds to the observation that your “Unchanging, Self-Evident Truth” has changed. - anything that responds to the observation that your assertion that “every cause has an effect” is tautological compels the conclusion that “every effect has a cause” is also tautological.Diffaxial_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "So I’ll ask again, are you saying that the formalization of the premise is wrong, or that the formal logic itself is wrong? This is not a loaded question. Why are you avoiding it?" I am not avoiding it. The premise is a lie.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Forget about that last comment about banning. I am content to expose the lie.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "1) You stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused." You are lying. I made no such statement. What I said was this: —”In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event.” Personally, I think people should be banned for lying.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial "Whatever other defects are evident in my position, both of these observations are fatal to your assertion that this particular unchanging, self-evident truth can supply a reliable foundation for the acquisition of knowledge." You are just blowing more smoke. You promised to defend the proposition that you can, at the same time, remain rational and disavow causality. It was your promise, not mine. At the moment of truth, you slinked away. I called your bluff, and you folded. Everything else you write is a fog calculated to camaflouge your retreat.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "Again, the logic is trivial, and again you’re not saying what is wrong with it. I thought that formalizing it was overkill, as you wouldn’t deny logic so simple and obvious. I was wrong." Obviously, your formulation is not capturing all the nuances, otherwise it would not lead to such gross misunderstanding. It isn't all that complicated, except perhaps for you. Here are the passages that Rob objected to. —”In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event.” It means exactly what it says. I even broke it down for him further, without changing the context of what I wrote. “In any quantum event, physically necessary conditions MUST exist such that the event MAY happen, but will NOT NECESSARILY happen. That is, everything MUST be in place that would allow the event to happen, even though the event still may not happen. On the other hand, if those conditions are NOT in place, the event cannot happen under any circumstances.” Rob ignored my explanation [no change in substance] as if it had not even been written. It needed no explanation, I was just trying to help him with his reading. Here is the second passage: —-”So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing.” I broke that one down for him as well as follows: “So, when a particle appears, that means that both the necessary and sufficient conditions were present. Otherwise, it would not or could not have happened. To be sure, the event was spontaneous and unpredictable, but it was not, as Darwinists claim, uncaused. In order for an event to be uncaused, both the necessary and sufficient conditions must be absent.” He ignored that as well. Remember, I changed nothing. I simply went the extra mile to help him with his reading deficit. Kairosfocus quoted what I wrote with approval and extended it later on in the thread. Rob, on the other hand, claimed that I had contradicted the same man that quoted me. I posted that discussion, by the way on this thread. Did Rob apologize for that lie? Of course not. Rob simply ignored that issue as well. Nothing I said on that thread contradicts anything I said on this or any other thread. [When Darwinists are losing a debate, they change the subject] Rob is confused about the fact that you can have a necessary cause without an event, but you cannot have an event without a necessary cause. Thus, his little foray into symbolic logic, cannot convey that subtlety, at least he is not capable of making the translation. So, I tried to provide the following remedial education for him. ….“you can have a necessary cause without an event, but you cannot have an event without a necessary cause. If A, then B, does not necessarily translate into If B, then A. In order to graduate from high school, one must be alive [necessary cause] and be alive and attend classes [sufficient cause]. But it doesn’t follow that I can graduate from high school without attending classes, even though graduating from high school also requires being alive as a cause. In order for the graduation to be uncaused, the student would have to graduate without being alive or attending classes. On the other hand, if the student is alive but doesn’t attend classes, he will not graduate, therefore, the necessary cause was present but the sufficient cause was not.” Even after I dumbed it down for him, he still doesn’t get it. Whose problem is that?StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Rob "Which of the above is false? Or do you maintain that they’re not contradictory?" Hi Rob, Interesting to use the LNC in order to demonstrate the flaws in Stephens position. A law that does not apply in all instances and has empirically been demonstrated by QM to not always apply. I guess Steven could just as well respond by saying that both statements are true as well as both statements are false. Just because they both contradict each other that poses no problem to the veracity of Stephens position!! :) Vividvividbleau_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 114: What I fail to see in your response is: - anything that responds to the observation that your "Unchanging, Self-Evident Truth" has changed. It has changed from "every effect has a cause" to "every physical event has a cause." What is the significance of this change? Do you intend these as exactly equivalent statements, or don't you? If they are exactly equivalent, why have you abandoned your prior formulation? - anything that responds to the observation that your correct assertion that "every cause has an effect" is tautological compels the conclusion that "every effect has a cause" is also tautological, which indeed is what I have argued all along. Do you retract your statement that "every cause has an effect" is tautological? Will you argue that "every cause has an effect is tautological, but "every effect has a cause" is not? On what basis? Whatever other defects are evident in my position, both of these observations are fatal to your assertion that this particular unchanging, self-evident truth can supply a reliable foundation for the acquisition of knowledge.Diffaxial_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Correction: "when you quoted you" --> "when he quoted you".R0b_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
It does not follow at all. It is not my problem that you cannot think straight.
Again, the logic is trivial, and again you're not saying what is wrong with it. I thought that formalizing it was overkill, as you wouldn't deny logic so simple and obvious. I was wrong. So I'll ask again, are you saying that the formalization of the premise is wrong, or that the formal logic itself is wrong? This is not a loaded question. Why are you avoiding it?
The same individual whom you dishonestly and purposely said that I contradicted. That was a straight out lie, and, if you like, I will revisit that lie.
You contradicted both kairosfocus and yourself. And kairosfocus contradicted himself when you quoted you and said "Correct." Again: 1) You stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused. 2) You presented vacuum fluctuations as an example of such an event. 3) Now you're saying that events cannot occur under insufficient conditions. Which of the above is false? Or do you maintain that they're not contradictory?R0b_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Lenoxus, also please understand that it was not my original intention to bring you into the discussion. Diffaxial introduced your name at 21. At that point, we were off and running.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

---Lenoxus: "StephenB: I accept the principle that a whole cannot be less than (or be a part of) any of its parts. I reject the principle that a whole cannot be less than some other whole." OK. I give you credit for acknowledging the principle and I agree that your words were over analyzed. I also agree that you have been a good sport. I admire your sense of humor and your honesty. We should all learn not to take ourselves so seriously.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

StephenB: I accept the principle that a whole cannot be less than (or be a part of) any of its parts. I reject the principle that a whole cannot be less than some other whole. One could construct a giant computer with regular-sized computers for the tops of the keyboard keys (or using dinner tables, or automobiles, or whatever). Why not? Would the larger computer "know" it included smaller computers and subsequently cease to exist? So yeah, I think you simply misinterpreted those now over-analyzed words of mine (whereas I have never misinterpreted anything, ever) and I'll leave it at that. :)Lenoxus_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "My previous response, and the above, are good faith, best efforts to address the issues at hand, as I see them. As you stated, “you deserve a chance to frame the issue in your own way,” and that is what I have done" Why you would invest all those paragraphs to run a bluff is beyond me. Everything you write is a bluff wrapped up in a fog. You promised that you would defend your irrational position just once, and my respectful tone was contingent on the anticipation that you would follow through with that promise. So, you can be sure that the short lived attempt to be respectful has more than run its course. You didn’t deliver. On the contrary, you simply launched into another one of your irrational screeds, and it is irrational in all respects. Earlier you wrote, “you might assert “your belief that streets can’t just get wet and your statements about quantum physics are inconsistent and hence irrational” or “your belief that streets can’t just get wet themselves is irrational in light of your assertion that my rule of right reason is a tautology” AND WE’D HAVE SOMETHING TO DISCUSS.” So, I asked you to discuss it, and what do you do, you slink away from your own promise, knowing that you can’t back it up and return to your usual nonsensical perspective on logic. Why should I respect the intellectual timidity that will not keep its own implied promise? In fact, what you write is little more than warmed over versions of David Hume and A. J. Ayer. For those unfamiliar with that lore, Hume believed that all meaningful ideas were, on the one hand, true by definition [does that sound familiar folks] or based on some sense experience. By his misunderstanding, there were no sense experiences for concepts beyond the NATURAL, therefore no metaphysical claim is worth believing. The irony is this, that although Hume insisted that truth doesn’t exist, he was absolutely sure that he had it. Does that sound familiar? Hume’s disciple, A. J. Ayer, extended that error and promulgated the doctrine he called, “the principle of empirical verifiability.” It means exactly what it sounds like. If a thing cannot be verified empirically, it should not be believed. Some call this formulation, “logical positivism.” For logical positivists, and for Diffaxial, there are only two kinds of meaningful propositions 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that can be empirically verified. Since that principle is neither true by definition, and since it cannot be verified, IT CANNOT BE MEANINGFUL. Therefore the philosophy refutes itself. Everything Diffaxial writes refutes itself because it is based on the same illogical propositions. So, he simply repeats the mantra thread after thread. All self-evident truths are tautologies…all self-evident truths are tautologies…all self-evident truths are tautologies. Logical principles tell us nothing about the real world… logical principles tell us nothing about the real world…logical principles tell us nothing about the real world. Naturally, that position refutes itself as well. If logic can tell us nothing about the real world, then logic can not tell us that logic can tell us nothing about the real world. Down deep, I suspect that he knows this, which is why he resists all my questions and immediately goes into his well worn routine, looking for ways to find contradictions in my writing when no contradictions are present. All the while he refuses to provide straight answers to straight questions, and even failed to follow through on his own promise that he would answer his own reframing of my questions. You will notice that I did not ask him a third time to back up his claim that rationality can be maintain even when the principle of causality is abandoned. There is a simple reason why he will not defend that proposition. It can’t be defended. His bluff was called, and he folded.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

----Rob: "He denies the following simple logic: From the statement, “To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever,” it follows that an event with necessary conditions is caused, regardless of whether it has sufficient conditions. The trivial logic was even formalized to avoid ambiguity, but he still hasn’t pointed out the problem in it." It does not follow at all. It is not my problem that you cannot think straight. I have provided plenty of examples, and all of them have been ignored. If you cannot learn from my examples, reread kairosfocus, who quoted me word for word to make the same point. The same individual whom you dishonestly and purposely said that I contradicted. That was a straight out lie, and, if you like, I will revisit that lie. You need to move on.StephenB_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

In #110, "counterexample to the LNC" should be "counterexample to the causality rule." Sorry. As an aside, StephenB, I think I speak for all of your challengers when I say that we're not asking for you to make things "easy" for us. What we want is precision and substance. It would really be nice if you could provide some operational or formal definitions, coupled with data or formal arguments. Once you do this, we can talk about whether you need to dumb it down for us. Until then, your hand-holding is premature.R0b_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

I said, in part:
You [Stephen] might assert ...,“your belief that streets can’t just get wet themselves is irrational in light of your assertion that my rule of right reason is a tautology” and we’d have something to discuss.
You said:
So, have a go at those two formulations, especially the latter one.
The "latter formulation" being the bolded portion of my quote above. That is a logical place to start. In my previous post I stated, "I do believe that 'every effect has a cause' as an a priori ‘law’ fails, as it is a tautology (because the definition of effect is 'a change that is a result or consequence of an action or a cause.')" Further, you responded directly to my assertion of tautology:
If I had said that every cause has an effect, it would indeed have been a tautology, since an “effect” is simply the latter half of the cause/effect formulation. However, I did not say that every cause has an effect; I said that every physical event has an effect.
So, this is where I began, with the question of tautology, obviously germane because my central assertion is that your rule of right reason fails due to tautology. Indeed, in my opinion, I will have mounted a successful defense upon showing that your rule of right reason does not accomplish what you claim it accomplishes. Absent that "truth," it is both necessary and rational to premise one's beliefs upon what remains: empirical regularities and inferences from same. ---- I then turned to the task at hand. I was surprised to immediately observe the following, to which you offer no response or explanation: 1) You have changed the unchanging, self-evident truth, rejection of which renders my belief about streets irrational. Whereas before it was "every effect has a cause," it is now "every physical event has a cause." I wondered if you had just slipped into that new phraseology (easy to do), but a review of this thread shows that you carefully used "physical event" rather than effect" several times throughout the thread. I hadn't previously noticed that. The change is striking, because, as my lengthy quote above demonstrates, you previously used "every effect has a cause" or its equivalent dozens of times. This change, at minimum, needs clarification and explanation, as the challenge set before me was to defend my belief vis wet streets in light of my rejection of "every effect has a cause," not "every physical event has a cause." 2) You state right off the bat, "If I had said that every cause has an effect, it would indeed have been a tautology, since an 'effect' is simply the latter half of the cause/effect formulation." I found this striking in part because of the reversal of "cause" and "effect," but also because of the concession it contains relative to our previous discussion of this topic. I have repeatedly asserted that "every effect has a cause" is tautological (in a previous thread). You above state that the closely related "every cause has an effect" is indeed tautological. The reversal makes no difference in one crucial respect: "Every effect has a cause" and "Every cause has an effect" are indeed complementary statements, exactly "symmetrical." If you accept that "every cause has an effect" is tautological "since an 'effect' is simply the latter half of the cause/effect formulation," you must accept that "every effect has a cause" is tautological, since "cause" is simply the former half of the cause/effect formulation. --- Together, these two observations devastate your argument. If you intend "every physical event has a cause" as exactly equivalent to "every effect has a cause," then the assertion that your "unchanging self-evident truth" is "self-evident" due to mere tautology stands, due to 2) above. If, on the other hand, you do not intend that "every physical event has a cause" is exactly equivalent to your previously oft repeated "every event has a cause," then you have changed a "law" that you previously unequivocally characterized as an "unchanging, self-evident truth." Obviously, unchanging, self-evident truths that change cannot serve the purpose you intend for them. In light of the above, I reject your unchanging, self-evident truth because it is, at the very least, either "self-evident" merely because it is tautological or because it is an "unchanging" truth that changes. Perhaps both. Fortunately, we have a well-developed understanding of macrophysical events such as water and wetness, the sorts of causal accounts that explain particular instances of wet streets, and the empirical regularity of those causal relationships. We also have a highly refined and extraordinarily precise understanding (both theoretical and empirical) of the domains in which quantum indeterminacy must be considered, such that it is completely clear from the physics that the "acausality" of some dimensions of quantum physics cannot stage a jail break and begin wetting roads and popping walls into existence out of thin air (your previous cartoon) without cause. You claim that this level and kind of certainty doesn't attain the standard of absolute certainty set by your unchanging, self-evident truths. Neither, in my opinion, does this particular "self-evident, unchanging truth," as it is only tautuologically self-evident, and/or it appears to change. I find it more rational to premise my picture of the world upon well-understood empirical regularities (an the associated theory) than upon unchanging truths that change and self-evidence that is tautological. --- A meta comment:
Now that we are addressing substance, you will find my responses far more respectful.
My previous response, and the above, are good faith, best efforts to address the issues at hand, as I see them. As you stated, "you deserve a chance to frame the issue in your own way," and that is what I have done. So much for "respectful."Diffaxial_{August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Go back and study.
No need to study. The facts are simple. 1) In an earlier thread, quantum events were presented as a counterexample to the LNC. 2) StephenB responded that events occurring under necessary but insufficient conditions are not uncaused. To be uncaused, he said, an event must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. 3) He reiterated the above later in the thread, and didn't modify it when I pointed out what I saw as problematic implications. 4) Now he maintains that events cannot occur under insufficient conditions, rendering nonsensical his response to the QM challenge. 5) He denies the following simple logic: From the statement, “To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever,” it follows that an event with necessary conditions is caused, regardless of whether it has sufficient conditions. The trivial logic was even formalized to avoid ambiguity, but he still hasn't pointed out the problem in it. I'll gladly provide details on any of the above that StephenB denies.R0b_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial: In our last correspondence, you wrote this: ……..”you might assert “your belief that streets can’t just get wet and your statements about quantum physics are inconsistent and hence irrational” or “your belief that streets can’t just get wet themselves is irrational in light of your assertion that my rule of right reason is a tautology” and we’d have something to discuss.” So, I asked you to take it on. Inasmuch as you have been running and hiding from my questions for the entire thread, I thought surely this would be the time when you would summon up the intellectual courage to take on the issue. It was YOUR formulation, after all, and YOUR assessment of a reasonable arrangement of my questions and you indicated that you would answer them. Yet when I invited you to stand up to the challenge, the only one you claimed to be able to handle, you ignored your own implied promise and decided rather to fill up the cyberspace with more of your usual “the-principles-of-right-reason-are-all-tautologies” nonsense---and make no mistake, it is nonsense. In spite of your protests to the contrary, the logic of the universe does correspond to the logic in our minds. Otherwise, we would not be able to make any sense at all out of anything. This point has always eluded you and it clouds your judgment on all the things that matter most. That is very, very, sad. It really is. Unfortunately, you are trapped in that mode and apparently unable to get out. Clearly, you do not understand the connection [and the difference] between the real world and the world of thought. That much has always been clear to me, but I didn’t realize how problematic your error was for you until you backed away from your own plan to answer your own challenge. I can only conclude that you were bluffing. You cannot reconcile that which you say you can reconcile because even you have come to understand that it is logically impossible. Even though you made the claim that you COULD justify the statement that streets can’t just get wet while denying the uncompromising principle of causality, it was clear to me all along that you cannot, which is why I invited you to do it. Your bluff was called, and you folded. It’s as simple as that. Everything else you wrote was nothing but a puff of smoke calculated to camouflage your retreat.StephenB_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "You previously stated that if an event occurs under necessary but insufficient conditions, the event is not uncaused. Is that still your position or not?" Rob, I made it very easy for you--examples and all. Go back and study.StephenB_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

In response to StephenB @ 103: I said:
I do believe that “every effect has a cause” as an a priori ‘law’ fails, as it is a tautology (because the definition of effect is “a change that is a result or consequence of an action or a cause.")
You replied:
If I had said that every cause has an effect, it would indeed have been a tautology, since an “effect” is simply the latter half of the cause/effect formulation. However, I did not say that every cause has an effect; I said that every physical event has an effect.
Let us take this step by step. First, above you correctly indicate that "every cause has an effect" is a tautology, since an effect is simply the latter half of the cause/effect formulation. That is to say (I would add), the definition of "cause" refers to "effects," as causes are defined as "that which produce effects." I have repeated the similar assertion that "every effect has a cause" is tautological for the same reason: the definition of "effect" is "that which results from a cause." If you like, a cause is the former half of the cause/effect formulation. "Every cause has an effect" and "every effect has a cause" are exactly symmetrical statements, each as tautological as the other, for exactly the same reasons. However, your claim now is, "every physical event has an effect." (I will be charitable and understand that your intention was to write "every physical event has a cause," as that is what you have stated several times in this thread, and the formulation "every physical event has an effect" makes little sense in the context of this discussion, e.g. vis wet streets.) But, as I note above, that was not your original claim. Your original claim, repeated many times, was, "every effect has a cause." Your own words from the "I have to keep reminding myself that science is self-correcting" thread:
"We should, by extension, close our minds to the proposition that effects can occur without causes." "On the one hand, for example, several bloggers have closed their minds to the self-evident truths that define rational discourse... advancing the proposition that “effects” can occur without causes." "If an effect can occur without a cause...there is no rationality." "So, you hesitate to say that [A] an effect cannot exist without its cause." "Consider the statement, 'an effect cannot exist without a cause.'" "Do you believe that the statement, 'an effect cannot exist without its cause,' is a statement about the real world?" "Is the statement, 'an effect cannot exist without its cause,' a statement about the real world?" "An effect cannot exist without its cause." "If an effect can occur without a cause in the real world, then the world is not rational and no logical law of non-contradiction would be of any use." "It should be obvious that, in the real world, an effect cannot occur without a cause."
So, before going further, in light of this change, I have to ask you: are physical events effects? Earlier I asked if human behaviors (choices, actions, etc.) are effects and, IIRC, you said yes. So I ask a similar question: are physical events effects? All physical events? Some physical events? No physical events? If all physical events are effects, then it seems to me that "every physical event (each one an effect) has a cause" is completely subsumed by "every effect has a cause." (This remains true even if one maintains that not all effects are physical events.) But, as I argue above, "every effect has a cause" is as tautological as "every cause has an effect," for exactly symmetrical reasons. Therefore, IF all "physical events" are "effects," then "every physical event has a cause" is as tautological as "every effect has a cause." If, however, only some physical events are effects, you need to explain how physical events that are effects differ from physical events that are not effects. The answer cannot be that "physical events that are not effects do not have causes" because you have already stated that "all physical events have causes." You will also have to explain how it can be that a physical event that has a cause is nevertheless not an effect. Frankly, "all physical events have causes, but only some physical events are effects" is completely unintelligible. I don't think we need visit "no physical events are effects." Therefore, so far as I can tell, that leaves you with the first option: All physical events are effects, and, therefore, "every physical event has a cause" is entirely subsumed by "every effect has a cause" (your original formulation). You are then faced with the fact that "every effect has a cause" is no less tautological then "every cause has an effect," and you above conceded that "every cause has an effect" IS in fact tautological. One more question: It was my understanding that you regard these laws as self-evidently true and unchanging. For example, you have made many statements similar to, "Our ever changing approximations are arrived at only upon tacit acceptance of self-evident, unchanging truths" (my emphasis; from the "I have to remind myself" thread). The notion that there are self-evident, unchanging truths prior to and upon which all rationality stands that themselves can change is obviously self-contradictory. But here you have (apparently carefully) advanced a new version of this particular self-evident, unchanging truth. Before it was "all effects have causes," now it is "all physical events have causes." So, 1) Are "all physical events have causes" and "all effects have causes" exactly equivalent? 2) Or, perhaps, is "all physical events have causes" a new Truth that you previously forgot to mention, or that recently became self-evident to you? 3) Or, perhaps, is "all physical events have causes" a modified version of "all effects have causes?" If yes to 1), then "all physical events have causes" is tautological, because "all effects have causes is tautological, for the same reason that "all causes have effects" is tautological. If yes to 2), then you are back to the need to explain how physical events that are not effects differ from those that are, as well as how, given that all physical events have causes, some are nevertheless not effects. If yes to 3), then your Self-Evident, Unchanging Law of Right Reason has changed, and that is fatal defect for the argument that they provide a reliable foundation for reason and rationality, because this change leaves open the possibility of further change. Again, I think you are stuck with 1), and your only remaining move is to argue that, while "all causes have effects" is tautological, "all effects have causes" is not. Good luck with THAT. To be honest, in my opinion you've collapsed into complete incoherence. Take that vacation.Diffaxial_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
No, it doesn’t
The logic is trivial. Is "¬(N ∨ S) ⇔ ¬C" an accurate formalization of your premise? Even if the rest of your paragraph constituted a valid argument, it doesn't address the issue of hand. I'm not arguing for or against your position on sufficiency. I'm arguing that your currently stated position contradicts your previously state position. You previously stated that if an event occurs under necessary but insufficient conditions, the event is not uncaused. Is that still your position or not?R0b_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

---Rob: “To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever,” it follows that an event with necessary conditions is caused, regardless of whether it has sufficient conditions.” No, it doesn’t because you can have a necessary cause without an event, but you cannot have an event without a necessary cause. If A, then B, does not necessarily translate into If B, then A. In order to graduate from high school, one must be alive [necessary cause] and be alive and attend classes [sufficient cause]. But it doesn’t follow that I can graduate from high school without attending classes, even though graduating from high school also requires being alive as a cause. To be uncaused, the student would have to graduate without being alive or attending classes. On the other hand, if the student is alive but doesn’t attend classes, he will not graduate, therefore, the necessary cause was present but the sufficient cause was not.StephenB_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

---Lenoxus: "For the record, I have never believed that an ordinary car can be part of an ordinary crankshaft. I expect StephenB to shortly find that statement to contradict what I have said earlier. I expect myself not to care — but who knows? Have a nice day, all!" The example was meant to dramatize the absurdity of denying the principle. I gather from your response, that you still deny the principle but don't like the implications of having done so. So, we have two possibilities: [A] You accept the principle, in which case I will apologize for misrepresenting you [B] You still reject the principle, in which case you are blowing smoke. Its your choice. Have a nice day.StephenB_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: “Not applicable, because I don’t believe that streets can get wet without a cause. Now that we are addressing substance, you will find my responses far more respectful. The point is that you have no rational standards to justify your belief. You can justify the belief only on the grounds that it has never happened as far as you know. Hence, you cannot, by your philosophy, reject the possibility. You can only say that, so far, it seems unlikely. ----“I do believe that “every effect has a cause” as an a priori ‘law’ fails, as it is a tautology (because the definition of effect is “a change that is a result or consequence of an action or a cause.”)” If I had said that every cause has an effect, it would indeed have been a tautology, since an “effect” is simply the latter half of the cause/effect formulation. However, I did not say that every cause has an effect; I said that every physical event has an effect. That, of course, is a statement of faith about the real world [not a mere definition] that cannot be proven—a self evident principle, if you like, ---the necessary assumption for sound science and rational discourse. ----“However it succeeds beautifully as an empirical generalization at the macrophysical level of wet streets, quantum indeterminacy not withstanding (as I stated above), and has long been a powerful heuristic that was crucial to the development of the scientific mindset. Therefore it is the soul of rationality to conform ones beliefs and behavior to such reliable generalizations.’ Correct. You conform your belief to the empirical generalization that streets do not normally get wet without a cause. However, you have no standard to declare that it cannot happen, as I have made clear since you do not accept the principle of causality, or, to be more precise, you accept it when you please and reject it when you please. Hence, you reject causality with respect to quantum indeterminancy or the origin of the universe, or whenever it is congenial with your inclinations. ----“As it is not my position, I don’t feel compelled to defend its rationality. I would observe that it is irrational to attribute to persons irrational positions they don’t hold, and then accuse them of irrationality.” You cannot provide any rational justification for believing that streets cannot get wet without a cause except to say that you accept the general principle that, as far as you know, it has not yet happened. That is not the same as providing reasons for saying that it cannot happen under any circumstances. I would rather not connect those dots for you; I would prefer that you connect them for me. ……..”you might assert “your belief that streets can’t just get wet and your statements about quantum physics are inconsistent and hence irrational” or “your belief that streets can’t just get wet themselves is irrational in light of your assertion that my rule of right reason is a tautology” and we’d have something to discuss.” I am getting ready to go on vacation, so I will soon have to wind things down. Still, you deserve a chance to frame the issue in your own way. So, have a go at those two formulations, especially the latter one. I don’t give people a hard time when they dig into substance.StephenB_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply