Philosophy Now Forum

Thank you, doc.

You're not on my ignore list, uwot. I'm just trying to track Ginko's concerns, and responding to two people at the same time doubles the amount of time it takes to compose a message, and my time for futzing about on the forum is limited by dint of my being employed. Since his concerns are (largely) similar to your own, and since I started this line of thought with him, I felt I should track with him. It only seemed fair.

No slight intended.

Fair enough, Immanuel Can. Yes, being employed does hamper things. Gotta go...

"Emp**yed", I wish you young guys would stop using dirty words around us old retired people.

uwot wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:...there are strong arguments that you do eventually have to get to a First Cause, otherwise it's just an infinite regress of causation (at least insofar as someone does not accept the un-caused nature of the universe, etc). The theist would obviously call that First Cause "God," but there's room for debate there I imagine.

I don't think there are any strong arguments, it is just natural to assume the universe must have come from somewhere. But however far back you go, to accept that there is no further conceivable scientific progress to be made and then invoking a god, is simply to invent a god of the gaps. That is not science.

Well, the First Cause is certainly a metaphysical principle, I'll give you that, but it's not a "gap." This isn't trying to answer a question 'now' that science will eventually get to. If anything, it's fallacious to think science could ever answer these sorts of metaphysical questions. Just because we're dealing with questions science can't answer, it's not unreasonable to continue trying to figure these things out. And since an infinite regress is metaphysically absurd, the alternative of a First Cause is both reasonable and plausible (perhaps even necessary). Theists obviously want to call this "God" (with good warrant) but that's not to say there's no other possible explanation (perhaps the quantum vacuum is this First Cause).

uwot wrote:I take everyone's point about the potential for unforeseen consequences in different fields (Hi thedoc, good to have you aboard, I'm glad it's not just us four prattling on), but it remains true that if no observable predictions arise in any field, an hypothesis is scientifically meaningless. That's not to say it should be abandoned or forgotten, because you never know, but there's no point flogging a dead horse.

That's a helpful clarification.

God in my view is "Experientially over-struck", has wrapped his hands around the "earth's Ore", effectively transcending the Matrix control-system.
In years past, it may very well have been captured by Jesus across the various Crystal~cities psychics visit, but the Ideal may very well be far more effectively captured by Giordano Bruno, an ancient philosopher from Italy that stretched his cross like a horse transcended into a Unicorn, burning miles.

ReliStuPhD wrote: Well, the First Cause is certainly a metaphysical principle, I'll give you that, but it's not a "gap." This isn't trying to answer a question 'now' that science will eventually get to. If anything, it's fallacious to think science could ever answer these sorts of metaphysical questions. Just because we're dealing with questions science can't answer, it's not unreasonable to continue trying to figure these things out. And since an infinite regress is metaphysically absurd, the alternative of a First Cause is both reasonable and plausible (perhaps even necessary). Theists obviously want to call this "God" (with good warrant) but that's not to say there's no other possible explanation (perhaps the quantum vacuum is this First Cause).

I don't have a major problem with what you are saying. I would also agree that a metaphysical principle doesn't necessarily mean it has a "gap". The "gap' occurs when we claim that such principles are actually scientific principles. This leads to pseudo-science. I am more than happy with Creationism and ID, so long as people don't call it a science. Sure, both science and metaphysics are committed to an ontology, but this doesn't mean they are committed to the same ontology.

Ontology is a branch of metaphysics, and like all ontologies, it designs a set of definitions for a specific purpose. The purpose being to draw out a distinction. For example, a philosophical zombie is an imaginary being that lacks experience. This metaphysical concept is designed to draw out the distinction between the "hard" and "easy" problems of consciousness. Obviously, science is not going to investigate philosophical zombies.

When it comes God the most likely possibility is that, he is either real, or he is imaginary. The concept of God can be useful for drawing out the distinction between things (universe for example) that are caused and uncaused. However, metaphysical first cause arguments automatically rule out any type of uncaused universe. After all, the purpose of this metaphysical exercise was to draw out this distinction.

Science can, and does propose both caused and uncaused explanations for the universe. But, we cannot simply say these uncaused explanations are not science because they provide non-casual explanations. After all, everyone knows first cause arguments tell us the universe must be the result of a cause, so we falsely draw out a distinction between science and non-science on this basis. It may well turn out to be the case that the universe was caused by someone or something. It may well turn out this cause was God. All of this is beside the point. The point being that scientific ontology is not the same as metaphysical ontology.


Edit: Grammatical error fixed.

uwot wrote:I must be on his ignore list. Could someone tell Immanuel Can that 'we' are not finally at it, please?

I was starting to think everyone had you on ignore for a while.

From my point of view I thought your explanations and comments were very good. I didn't respond because I was pretty much in agreement.

Where now, gentlemen?

It seems we are (if uwot is correct) not even going to agree on the basic precept that science presupposes causality. For me, the reluctance to recognize so basic an axiom takes us completely out of the world of empiricism and science. For it would entail that we are to consider it rational for things to come about without causes. That looks like magic, not science at all.

Now, I can only imagine how quickly you'd be on me if I adopted such a strategy myself. Imagine if I said to you, "Miracles are real and scientifically valid because they can just happen: Red Seas can split without a cause...blind men can see without any cause...and the universe can exist uncaused..." I think you'd be after me in a trice; and, I think, should be too. And yet, unless I mistake you gentlemen, you're firm on the idea that science requires no causes, and the very universe itself is an uncaused entity.

And if all that's right, I have to be perplexed: for to me, it looks like a complete epistemological double standard.

Any advance on that?

Immanuel Can wrote:Where now, gentlemen?

It seems we are (if uwot is correct) not even going to agree on the basic precept that science presupposes causality. For me, the reluctance to recognize so basic an axiom takes us completely out of the world of empiricism and science. For it would entail that we are to consider it rational for things to come about without causes. That looks like magic, not science at all.

Now, I can only imagine how quickly you'd be on me if I adopted such a strategy myself. Imagine if I said to you, "Miracles are real and scientifically valid because they can just happen: Red Seas can split without a cause...blind men can see without any cause...and the universe can exist uncaused..." I think you'd be after me in a trice; and, I think, should be too. And yet, unless I mistake you gentlemen, you're firm on the idea that science requires no causes, and the very universe itself is an uncaused entity.

And if all that's right, I have to be perplexed: for to me, it looks like a complete epistemological double standard.

Any advance on that?

If your are asking where we are going in terms of science, then that depends on the empirical evidence.

Why is it a double standard? Science is not saying that the universe is uncaused. Science is saying it is possible that the universe could be caused or uncaused. It all depends on the model. The correct interpretation will be determined by the team that produces observational evidence that supports their model. Well, actually it isn't quite that simple. The team that produces the model is relying on others in the field to devise an indirect or direct experiment.

If your are asking where we are going in terms of science, then that depends on the empirical evidence.

No, I was asking where we go with the discussion, because unless we are committed to the basic principle of causality, we can scarcely make progress. For the Principle of Causality, there is all the empirical evidence in the world; but one has to be prepared to believe the evidence, or nothing more can be said.

Why is it a double standard? Science is not saying that the universe is uncaused. Science is saying it is possible that the universe could be caused or uncaused.

I find this extremely implausible. I know of several models of the universe, but not a single one rests its first principle on the idea that events can occur without a sufficient cause of some kind. Even Quantum Dynamics can't get going without a quantum field, and a quantum field is not "nothing." Likewise the Multiverse Hypotheses: all are speculative suppositions about origins, but not one of these models argues that "stuff just happens" is some kind of explanation of the universe.

If any such explanation were ever tried, it would be the least deserving of that title, for it would "explain" not a thing.

It all depends on the model. The correct interpretation will be determined by the team that produces observational evidence that supports their model. Well, actually it isn't quite that simple. The team that produces the model is relying on others in the field to devise an indirect or direct experiment.

Absolutely right, it's "not that simple." The "observational evidence" is zero, for no persons or instruments that we know of were present at the moment of the creation of the universe. That leaves us with only recent and current phenomena from which to extrapolate, plus existing scientific laws for our account of what hypotheses can be entertained about that.

But causality is a fundamental piece of that equipment. And without it, we will have no account of the origin of the universe that we will ever have any reason to believe. For according to what seems to be your position, "stuff just happens." Universes appear without causes.

You will understand my skepticism, therefore.

Immanuel Can wrote:

If your are asking where we are going in terms of science, then that depends on the empirical evidence.

No, I was asking where we go with the discussion, because unless we are committed to the basic principle of causality, we can scarcely make progress. For the Principle of Causality, there is all the empirical evidence in the world; but one has to be prepared to believe the evidence, or nothing more can be said.

Why is it a double standard? Science is not saying that the universe is uncaused. Science is saying it is possible that the universe could be caused or uncaused.

I find this extremely implausible. I know of several models of the universe, but not a single one rests its first principle on the idea that events can occur without a sufficient cause of some kind. Even Quantum Dynamics can't get going without a quantum field, and a quantum field is not "nothing." Likewise the Multiverse Hypotheses: all are speculative suppositions about origins, but not one of these models argues that "stuff just happens" is some kind of explanation of the universe.

If any such explanation were ever tried, it would be the least deserving of that title, for it would "explain" not a thing.

It all depends on the model. The correct interpretation will be determined by the team that produces observational evidence that supports their model. Well, actually it isn't quite that simple. The team that produces the model is relying on others in the field to devise an indirect or direct experiment.

Absolutely right, it's "not that simple." The "observational evidence" is zero, for no persons or instruments that we know of were present at the moment of the creation of the universe. That leaves us with only recent and current phenomena from which to extrapolate, plus existing scientific laws for our account of what hypotheses can be entertained about that.

But causality is a fundamental piece of that equipment. And without it, we will have no account of the origin of the universe that we will ever have any reason to believe. For according to what seems to be your position, "stuff just happens." Universes appear without causes.

You will understand my skepticism, therefore.

I think we need to get this bit sorted out.

I am not suggesting that "stuff just happens". Naturally, we live in a cause an effect universe. It is just that eternal theories of the universe don't require a first cause. This is not a denial of causation, it is just a denial there was a first cause.

It is just that eternal theories of the universe don't require a first cause. This is not a denial of causation, it is just a denial there was a first cause.

Ah, then what you're unfamiliar with is the mathematical and rational proofs against the idea of an actual infinite universe, not the idea of causality. Got it.

Immanuel Can wrote:

It is just that eternal theories of the universe don't require a first cause. This is not a denial of causation, it is just a denial there was a first cause.

Ah, then what you're unfamiliar with is the mathematical and rational proofs against the idea of an actual infinite universe, not the idea of causality. Got it.

I think I said, "eternal", not "infinite"

no one knows. Has anyone ever seen and talked to God or Jesus? No one has.