theist in a foxhole

[uwot]

It's you who's still not getting it. Metaphysics has nothing to do with the capacity to produce a phenomenon, except maybe that produceable phenomena do not fall under the rubric of metaphysics.

I don't think you mean that. I've said all along that it is only phenomena which are the object of science. The irony is that the 'physical' stuff is metaphysical; if you like, 'materialism' is a philosophical, not scientific point of view; which is to say 'matter' is as metaphysical as god. I've said this before: physics can tell you the properties of fundamental particles, mass, charge and spin, to amazing precision, but it cannot tell you what fundamental particles are made of.
The same is true on the large scale. General Relativity is a very successful way to describe the phenomenal effects of gravity. We can use Einstein's field equations to predict the movement of the tides, planets and stars very accurately. However, GR is based on a model of 4 dimensional 'spacetime', basically a coordinate system invented by Einstein's tutor Hermann Minkowski, which itself is undetectable by science, it is 'metaphysical'. The fact that it works doesn't make it real.
Compare that with this exchange:

I agree with uwot that there can be no evidence of such unobservable, nonphysical things. In fact, although I am agnostic regarding what may exist beyond science (God, nothing, unicorns, etc.), I am positive that there is no evidence for the existence of God - empirical, non-testimonial evidence.

But if an unobservable, non-physical thing could have an effect on observable, physical things, that effect would count as evidence, right? And how do we know that such a thing is impossible? It seems to me that "there can be no evidence..." is a statement you can't possibly back up, if for no other reason than that you can't develop a scientific experiment to show it to be true. (Or maybe you can and I'm just not aware of such an experiment.)

They are similar in that you can count the observed effects of gravity as evidence for 4D spacetime, if that is what you happen to believe in, just as you can count whatever it is you take to be evidence for your particular god as evidence for that god. The difference is that associated with the metaphysical spacetime is a bunch of equations based on distortions that describe observable, repeatable and objective. That is not true of any god hypothesis.

PS To which "phenomena that are being observed and manipulated, are objective and repeatable" are you referring with respect to, for example, the model concerning the cyclic nature of Big Bangs and Big Crunches? Or Multiverse models? See my point?

The point is that they are interesting ideas, not that they are scientific. There are scientists who take them seriously enough to try to discern if they would make any observable difference to the phenomenal world. In the case of the cyclical universe it was supposed that there might be 'echoes' of some sort from previous cycles, but given the accelerating of the expansion of the universe, not many people still think a Big Crunch is likely. I don't know what the evidence for the multiverse model would be, but if there isn't any, then it is just an hypothesis and you can have different, even conflicting metaphysical hypotheses in physics. The same is true of religion, there are any number of conflicting and mutually exclusive 'gods', for whom the fact that there is a 'creation' is evidence. One of the key differences, as highlighted by Karl Popper, in religion, there is no evidence that could possibly show that there is no god, and no competent scientist would claim there is.

To sum up:
Any hypothesis that is consistent with the observed facts could be true. If there is no way to falsify them, they cannot be proven wrong.
Scientific claims make predictions that can be tested by experiment. If the predictions made by the model don't manifest, the theory is wrong.
Religions do not generally make predictions of that sort and no religion has ever made a prediction that could prove the religion untrue.
The metaphysical models that underpin science are not true or untrue; they work or they fail.
They cannot ever be proven true; there is no way to know that a particular theory will account for all future observations, and there is no way to know that a simpler or more elegant mathematical model is impossible to devise.
The Truth is metaphysical-it really is beyond science, but science isn't about that; science is about how the world works, not what it is.

[uwot]

What you call evidence for your god is exactly the same evidence that any fully sentient human being on the planet can see.

Oh, good...you're back.

I was wondering where you'd gotten off to.

Did you figure out what the Moral Argument was?

Ready to have your best try at it?

Fire away.

Do you not think it disrespectful to ignore challenges put to you, but demand others respond to yours?

So is this moral argument different from the not very good one we discussed earlier? As I remember, your argument was that because we accept that there are moral truths (we don't), there must be some moral agent (doesn't follow).

[Wyman]

This is a response to IC's last response to me (uwot slid in and messed me all up ):


I generally agree with what you say here, we just got tangled up in semantics. In my mathematical terminology, theorems are proven from a set of axioms. So yes, you are right that I stating a belief in Einstein's mathematics, not his general science; which is what I meant by the theory being only as good as the assumptions (axioms). I didn't take your question in the proper sense, apparently, so I'll try again.

I don't believe that 'facts' can be proven absolutely. Facts are proven, if at all, within a formal system. I'm being technical here, which is why we got mixed up before. That does not mean that I don't accept a great many 'facts' as true (i.e. extremely high probability). I'll give you good one: I believe that organisms have evolved over time on Earth.

I do possess an intuition that agrees somewhat with the design argument and in particular, your last comment on it. I think it is an amazing fact that, for instance, the theorems deduced by Einstein from his assumptions match observation. For there is not a necessary reason that nature should follow deductive logic.

But I don't raise my intuition to the level of belief or knowledge. I consider it a mystery to be explored. The same with the idea of a finite universe. Absurdities arise if you assume a finite universe as well as if you assume an infinite universe. That's why I don't buy the cosmological argument - I am agnostic as to the premiss. But I disagree with you that Hilbert was concerned with any of this. Cantor proved a great many properties of infinite sets that came as a great surprise to mathematicians. These are not crazy, mystical properties but well defined and now well understood mathematical properties. At around the same time, Dedekind and others developed a way to define and model real numbers as a continuum. Such models can be relevant in dispelling old paradoxes that resulted from an underdeveloped mathematics such as Zeno possessed. I think that is relevant to some of the arguments against the idea of an infinite universe. We can now mathematically model how the arrow makes it to the target and how time can continue infinitely (even if, for instance, it loops back).

[Obvious Leo]

I think it is an amazing fact that, for instance, the theorems deduced by Einstein from his assumptions match observation.

You're easily impressed. Spacetime physics is entirely tautologous because it is exclusively based on observations and exclusively designed to predict future observations. If we design our models simply to predict what the observer will observe then we can claim only a Pyrrhic victory when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what our models have predicted. The models of physics are held together by sticky tape and string, more commonly known as mathematical constants, and these are simply calculated from observation. Therefore the predictive authority of physics is akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

If time is infinitely divisible how can Zeno's arrow ever reach its target? Georg Cantor would turn in his grave at the suggestion that an infinite set could be contained within a finite one in a physically real sense. This can he held as true in a mathematically abstract sense but it cannot hold true in a physically real universe. If time is physically real it must have a smallest possible unit value i.e. it must be quantised.

[Wyman]

It's you who's still not getting it. Metaphysics has nothing to do with the capacity to produce a phenomenon, except maybe that produceable phenomena do not fall under the rubric of metaphysics.

I don't think you mean that. I've said all along that it is only phenomena which are the object of science. The irony is that the 'physical' stuff is metaphysical; if you like, 'materialism' is a philosophical, not scientific point of view; which is to say 'matter' is as metaphysical as god. I've said this before: physics can tell you the properties of fundamental particles, mass, charge and spin, to amazing precision, but it cannot tell you what fundamental particles are made of.
The same is true on the large scale. General Relativity is a very successful way to describe the phenomenal effects of gravity. We can use Einstein's field equations to predict the movement of the tides, planets and stars very accurately. However, GR is based on a model of 4 dimensional 'spacetime', basically a coordinate system invented by Einstein's tutor Hermann Minkowski, which itself is undetectable by science, it is 'metaphysical'. The fact that it works doesn't make it real.
Compare that with this exchange:

I agree with uwot that there can be no evidence of such unobservable, nonphysical things. In fact, although I am agnostic regarding what may exist beyond science (God, nothing, unicorns, etc.), I am positive that there is no evidence for the existence of God - empirical, non-testimonial evidence.

But if an unobservable, non-physical thing could have an effect on observable, physical things, that effect would count as evidence, right? And how do we know that such a thing is impossible? It seems to me that "there can be no evidence..." is a statement you can't possibly back up, if for no other reason than that you can't develop a scientific experiment to show it to be true. (Or maybe you can and I'm just not aware of such an experiment.)

They are similar in that you can count the observed effects of gravity as evidence for 4D spacetime, if that is what you happen to believe in, just as you can count whatever it is you take to be evidence for your particular god as evidence for that god. The difference is that associated with the metaphysical spacetime is a bunch of equations based on distortions that describe observable, repeatable and objective. That is not true of any god hypothesis.

PS To which "phenomena that are being observed and manipulated, are objective and repeatable" are you referring with respect to, for example, the model concerning the cyclic nature of Big Bangs and Big Crunches? Or Multiverse models? See my point?

The point is that they are interesting ideas, not that they are scientific. There are scientists who take them seriously enough to try to discern if they would make any observable difference to the phenomenal world. In the case of the cyclical universe it was supposed that there might be 'echoes' of some sort from previous cycles, but given the accelerating of the expansion of the universe, not many people still think a Big Crunch is likely. I don't know what the evidence for the multiverse model would be, but if there isn't any, then it is just an hypothesis and you can have different, even conflicting metaphysical hypotheses in physics. The same is true of religion, there are any number of conflicting and mutually exclusive 'gods', for whom the fact that there is a 'creation' is evidence. One of the key differences, as highlighted by Karl Popper, in religion, there is no evidence that could possibly show that there is no god, and no competent scientist would claim there is.

To sum up:
Any hypothesis that is consistent with the observed facts could be true. If there is no way to falsify them, they cannot be proven wrong.
Scientific claims make predictions that can be tested by experiment. If the predictions made by the model don't manifest, the theory is wrong.
Religions do not generally make predictions of that sort and no religion has ever made a prediction that could prove the religion untrue.
The metaphysical models that underpin science are not true or untrue; they work or they fail.
They cannot ever be proven true; there is no way to know that a particular theory will account for all future observations, and there is no way to know that a simpler or more elegant mathematical model is impossible to devise.
The Truth is metaphysical-it really is beyond science, but science isn't about that; science is about how the world works, not what it is.

I think it's also significant that it is the observations in science that give rise to models rather than models in search of observations. Einstein's deductions and mathematical equations, based on observations, led to certain models of the universe, and not vice versa. Noticing that acceleration was observationally the same as gravity led him to eventually work out equations and models. He didn't say 'I really believe in warped, curved space because I had a dream the other day; I wonder if I can work out some equations to match that idea up with observations.'

[Wyman]

I think it is an amazing fact that, for instance, the theorems deduced by Einstein from his assumptions match observation.

You're easily impressed. Spacetime physics is entirely tautologous because it is exclusively based on observations and exclusively designed to predict future observations. If we design our models simply to predict what the observer will observe then we can claim only a Pyrrhic victory when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what our models have predicted. The models of physics are held together by sticky tape and string, more commonly known as mathematical constants, and these are simply calculated from observation. Therefore the predictive authority of physics is akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

If time is infinitely divisible how can Zeno's arrow ever reach its target? Georg Cantor would turn in his grave at the suggestion that an infinite set could be contained within a finite one in a physically real sense. This can he held as true in a mathematically abstract sense but it cannot hold true in a physically real universe. If time is physically real it must have a smallest possible unit value i.e. it must be quantised.

1) Then why did they spend all that money sailing around the world to photograph an eclipse of the sun?

2) No, the correct way to phrase it is 'The arrow reaches the target; so how can we represent that mathematically?'

If a function gives the position of something as a function of time, the first derivative gives its velocity, and the second derivative gives its acceleration. So, you differentiate position to get velocity, and you differentiate velocity to get acceleration. How do you suppose we model velocity and acceleration - i.e. do calculus - without the notion of infinity, either in the idea of infintesimals or limits?

Your dichotomy between a 'physically real sense' and a 'mathematically abstract sense' is suspect to me. If the interval between time A and time B is finite, then what is the smallest possible (real) unit of time?

[Immanuel Can]

As I remember, your argument was that because we accept that there are moral truths (we don't), there must be some moral agent (doesn't follow).

Nope. Go back and find out. There's no use in us talking if you don't even know the argument.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't believe that 'facts' can be proven absolutely. Facts are proven, if at all, within a formal system. I'm being technical here, which is why we got mixed up before. That does not mean that I don't accept a great many 'facts' as true (i.e. extremely high probability). I'll give you good one: I believe that organisms have evolved over time on Earth.

I do possess an intuition that agrees somewhat with the design argument and in particular, your last comment on it. I think it is an amazing fact that, for instance, the theorems deduced by Einstein from his assumptions match observation. For there is not a necessary reason that nature should follow deductive logic.

Yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing at all here. Do continue.

But I don't raise my intuition to the level of belief or knowledge. I consider it a mystery to be explored. The same with the idea of a finite universe. Absurdities arise if you assume a finite universe as well as if you assume an infinite universe. That's why I don't buy the cosmological argument - I am agnostic as to the premiss. But I disagree with you that Hilbert was concerned with any of this. Cantor proved a great many properties of infinite sets that came as a great surprise to mathematicians. These are not crazy, mystical properties but well defined and now well understood mathematical properties. At around the same time, Dedekind and others developed a way to define and model real numbers as a continuum. Such models can be relevant in dispelling old paradoxes that resulted from an underdeveloped mathematics such as Zeno possessed. I think that is relevant to some of the arguments against the idea of an infinite universe. We can now mathematically model how the arrow makes it to the target and how time can continue infinitely (even if, for instance, it loops back).

Again I don't think we're disagreeing. You're still talking about non-empirical things like mathematics. "Infinity" is a perfectly good mathematical concept. It just doesn't work empirically when one applies it to the universe itself. That's one of the things that comes out of, say the Kalaam argument advanced by William Lane Craig.

There's a lot in this issue that's highly technical. Maybe too technical for an open Philosophy forum for a non-academic audience. I'm hesitant to get all snotty and highbrow on people; there's a level at which inviting folks into an academic discussion is a kind of compliment, showing you think highly of their abilities; but there's also a level beyond that where you're just talking over people's heads and making them feel disregarded. I don't want to go there.

But now that we are more tightly focused, is there anywhere you'd like to go with the discussion, somewhere where we can be cognizant of others and considerate of the fact that not everyone who reads here is a specialist?

[Wyman]

You said

But some arguments [regarding the existence of God] are formal and logical, and these can be conclusive.

Now that we are both on the same page about what constitutes a formal, logical, conclusive argument, I await your defense of that statement. Formal logic is not much different than mathematics as far as I know. I never challenged the notion that merely persuasive arguments or rhetoric exist. But you and others claim that the existence of God can be deduced.

[Obvious Leo]

I think it's also significant that it is the observations in science that give rise to models rather than models in search of observations.

A neat way of summarising the point I was making. Science is a process of inductive inference from observation and thus can only model the assumptions the observer makes about his observation, since an observation is a construct of the human consciousness. Metaphysics, on the other hand, is a process of logical deduction from first principles. This path is also strewn with lurking dragons because the truth value of the chosen first principles can only be validated by the empirical testing of the logical conclusions which can be drawn from them. Natural Philosophy attempts to marry these inductive and deductive approaches in such a way as to make them compatible with each other and mutually validating. It's not an easy game.

1) Then why did they spend all that money sailing around the world to photograph an eclipse of the sun?

Indeed. It would have been a lot cheaper just to watch a stick appear to bend in water like we did back in high school.

If the interval between time A and time B is finite, then what is the smallest possible (real) unit of time?

In physics the smallest possible unit of time is the Planck interval, which has a value of 5.4 x 10(-44) seconds. It is the smallest possible interval in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened and it is the most inconstant interval in the universe being moderated from the cosmological scale all the way down to the Planck scale by gravity.

[thedoc]

There's a lot in this issue that's highly technical. Maybe too technical for an open Philosophy forum for a non-academic audience. I'm hesitant to get all snotty and highbrow on people; there's a level at which inviting folks into an academic discussion is a kind of compliment, showing you think highly of their abilities; but there's also a level beyond that where you're just talking over people's heads and making them feel disregarded. I don't want to go there.

But now that we are more tightly focused, is there anywhere you'd like to go with the discussion, somewhere where we can be cognizant of others and considerate of the fact that not everyone who reads here is a specialist?

If I may say, I don't mind if you get all snotty and highbrow, If I have the energy to look up the occasional term, I will. Sometimes I just sit back blinking my eyes thinking WTF, but that's my problem, not your's. At least I enjoy reading a thread like this trying to follow even if I can't contribute much, so I would say, please continue at whatever level you need to, and those of us who are not specialists will either try to follow, or go to another thread. I will not feel dis-anything if you do. With an "over-my-head" conversation, I'll either learn something, or not.

[ReliStuPhD]

Metaphysics has nothing to do with the capacity to produce a phenomenon, except maybe that produceable phenomena do not fall under the rubric of metaphysics.

I don't think you mean that.

I definitely do. Metaphysics isn't about producing phenomena.

PS To which "phenomena that are being observed and manipulated, are objective and repeatable" are you referring with respect to, for example, the model concerning the cyclic nature of Big Bangs and Big Crunches? Or Multiverse models? See my point?

The point is that they are interesting ideas, not that they are scientific.

The more we go back and forth, the more I'm convinced you're effectively arguing against a point I never made (but one with which I agree). All along, I have been speaking of atheists who do not understand this basic distinction; that effectively see the scientist's "that's interesting" as "Look! Science can give us these answers!" I've not been speaking of the scientists themselves, except where they also forgot this basic distinction (and some certainly do).

The Truth is metaphysical-it really is beyond science, but science isn't about that; science is about how the world works, not what it is.

No argument there. That's ultimately my point: some atheists misunderstand just how far science can go. In dismissing the theist's answers concerning Truth and then turning to science for those answers, they make a fundamental mistake (and are engaged in more than a bit of hypocrisy).

[Wyman]

I think it's also significant that it is the observations in science that give rise to models rather than models in search of observations.

A neat way of summarising the point I was making. Science is a process of inductive inference from observation and thus can only model the assumptions the observer makes about his observation, since an observation is a construct of the human consciousness. Metaphysics, on the other hand, is a process of logical deduction from first principles. This path is also strewn with lurking dragons because the truth value of the chosen first principles can only be validated by the empirical testing of the logical conclusions which can be drawn from them. Natural Philosophy attempts to marry these inductive and deductive approaches in such a way as to make them compatible with each other and mutually validating. It's not an easy game.

1) Then why did they spend all that money sailing around the world to photograph an eclipse of the sun?

Indeed. It would have been a lot cheaper just to watch a stick appear to bend in water like we did back in high school.

If the interval between time A and time B is finite, then what is the smallest possible (real) unit of time?

In physics the smallest possible unit of time is the Planck interval, which has a value of 5.4 x 10(-44) seconds. It is the smallest possible interval in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened and it is the most inconstant interval in the universe being moderated from the cosmological scale all the way down to the Planck scale by gravity.

That last point is interesting. It goes beyond my understanding of physics. I do have thoughts on the prior comments, though. I'll have to get back to this later this weekend.

[Obvious Leo]

The existence or non-existence of god is not a legitimate subject of either scientific or philosophical enquiry because such a being can only exist external to the physical universe. Engaging in such an argument cannot possibly be over anybody's head but it ought to be beneath anybody's dignity.

[Arising_uk]

... That's one of the things that comes out of, say the Kalaam argument advanced by William Lane Craig. ...

Craig's version is logically incoherent.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=11982