 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
LR, the flaw I see in your argument is this.
ASSUMING there is a God, and assuming God is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-etc, then it must follow that God knows more than we do.
It must further follow that God must know more than our philosophers.
It must further follow that if God knows more than we do, there's a possibility that our definitions of logic, reason, etc., are wrong, and it follows from that, that our whole outlook could be wrong.
So, then, you can argue against God existing all you want, but an argument you won't be able to surmount is one that says, "Fine, by OUR standards of logic and reason you might be correct, but by GOD'S standards you are wrong."
I'll grant you that isn't a strong argument - based upon OUR standards of logic and reason - but it is valid nonetheless, given an assumption of an all-powerful God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
Alright, I have this chair, and I know that God loves it, and understanding that God loves it, yet not out of spite, I don't love it.
How is this possible? I know God loves it, I understand it, yet, I for some reason cannot love it. Now, instead of a chair, imagine some complex concept like justice. I understand God's justice, yet I reject, not out of spite, but because I cannot do it. How?
Another question would be; I love this chair, now, do I love the chair because it is inherently lovable? Or do I love it because God loves it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
GePap: Logical realist:
You state that reason and logic are paramount. Well then, if God is onmicient, which is vital for Omnipotence, then God must know the truth, arrived by Logic and Reason. Thus, what he commands is Good, since it is based on infinite knowledge and perfect reason. This, at least, would be the counter-argument. I myself don't belive it, but it is one you must keep in mind.
|
That again would posit that there was a source of morality other then God, that God could be accountable to. Such a statement would go against the concept of God being the creator of morality, the source of all good and hence would not be Christian.
In Christianity; God makes right and wrong. Under a logical system God would discover right and wrong. Under a logical system then God would be accountable and could not alter right and wrong.
The "God as a Guide" idea is not really what I'm talking about here. Such an idea is more Platonic then anything and I recognize that.
Rogan Josh:
quote:
There is no such thing as 'true objectivism'. |
That statement is self-refuting Either it wuld have to be objective, and hence true and therefore false; or subjective itself and therefore not true.
quote:
Everything is subjective. |
Everything in our experiences and imaginations is "Subjective". Most things are not though. Rocks,birds and such are not subjective as they are not inside our minds. Another person's experience is also not subjective to me.
quote:
Everything you experience is influenced and affected by who you are, and someone else in the same situation may have an entirely different experience. |
But who you are is detemined by objective factors like genes and enviroment. Experiences are products of objective chemical reactions and biological functions.
If another person has a different experience they objectively have a different experience do to differences in physiology,chemistry and enviroment. It is a fact that there is a difference.
In you subjectivist viewpoint the idea that there is any difference in experience is likewise "just opinion". What if in someone's experience then, everyone's experiences are the same? The very statement that experiences differ presupposes objective facts.
quote:
Even science is subjective. Quantum mechanical systems are insperable from the observer. |
That is somewhat of a myth and hyperbolic statement. In Quantumn Mechanics the observer affects what he is observing. That doesn't mean that its subjective(in the mind). Just like I can affect a rock when I throw it, it doesn't mean the rock is subjective. All it means is that we cannot know what the unaffected objewct is like.
Now people stretch this staement concerning electrons to larger objects. When in reality there is a vaste difference. Just because we affect electrons by measuring them it doesn't mean we affect everything. Those who go by the Quantumn Mechanincs=the entire universe is affected by measurent myth must show why the universe is going to behave like singular electrons.
quote:
Furthermore, in science we assume that there is one set of laws and one logic for everyone in the universe, but this is only an assumption to make science possible. It is a good assumption, but still an assumption - even physical laws and 'logic' could be different for different people. |
In your statement all the above again is assumption.
Keep in mind that the very concpt of possible and impossible refers to logical and illogical. Hence to say that the illogical is impossible is absurd. To say that logic is possibly different for different people is likewise illogical so impossible. To say otherwise is to go by an arbitrary definition of possible. Also science does not assume physical laws apply to anyone, they observe everyone living in similiar conditions and being affected in similar ways.
Goingonit:
quote:
Same argument then. God created the nature of reality. God, thus, as the existence of God predates the adherence of the universe to logic (remember, before God created the universe there was chaos), God may be anomalous if we assume God to be part of a rational, logical framework. |
Basically here you are merely saying that God is not limited by anthying because he created everything. Again here you face the soilpsist dilema. I guess if you ditch logic you can belive that, but by logical standards: that is absurd.
quote:
But there is nothing about God that leads to a subjective reality. |
You only say that because you are under a theistic bias.
If I said my brother Paul, creates and controls all reality that is no less subjectivist(reality is in the mind) then saying God creates and controls reality. You just make the mind "God" and exception.
If subjectivism means its all "in a mind" ultimately then Godism(the Christian one at least) is that.
quote:
Solipsism is, for example, Berkley's proof of the nonexistence of matter, or someone saying that they are the only real poster no Apolyton and the rest of you are all DLs. |
I'd say that was an overly narrow view. You refer to Berkeley; keep in mind that Berekley's system then is merely an explicit form of what I'm criticizing. Berkeley said it was all "in the mind of God" with us "lesser minds" running around. Just like Christianity says. Solipsism means, much like idealism and such, that its "Imagined" or "reality is imagined". Usually refering to the person making the claim. Which is why I say there are different types, like collectivist(1984 type) and third person(Berkeley and Christian type).
quote:
You mean like Through The Looking Glass. But nobody is saying that God imagines the Universe. Just because I create something doesn't mean that it exists only by virtue of my mind. |
Well that's somewhat of a false analogy as when you create something you are doing it by using objects that you know are not just thought up into existence by you. With God its different. God supposedly thought up everything into existence and can make everything nonexistent with a thought. In that sense everything then is merely part of His mind. That is solipsism.
For example if I said I thought everything into existence, even you and could change all of reality with my mind. You'd see that as solipsism fast enough.
Rogan:
quote:
No it isn't. A solipsist believes that he is the only being in the universe. All I was saying is that everyone has different perceptions of reality - that no two observers can experience the same things. This is surely undeniable. |
I'd say that was a very narrow definition of solipsism. For something can be said to be real even if it is just imagined. If I say you are "real" but in my mind, that is still solipsism.
I also admit that there are differences in experience but I know that there are differences by means of rational,objective evidence. Reject the later and you must jettison the case for the former.
Floyd:
quote:
ASSUMING there is a God, and assuming God is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-etc, then it must follow that God knows more than we do.
It must further follow that God must know more than our philosophers.
It must further follow that if God knows more than we do, there's a possibility that our definitions of logic, reason, etc., are wrong, and it follows from that, that our whole outlook could be wrong.
So, then, you can argue against God existing all you want, but an argument you won't be able to surmount is one that says, "Fine, by OUR standards of logic and reason you might be correct, but by GOD'S standards you are wrong."
I'll grant you that isn't a strong argument - based upon OUR standards of logic and reason - but it is valid nonetheless, given an assumption of an all-powerful God. |
Again let me make it clear that in that case you are talking about a different view of morality in God.
In one system...the Christian one it goes like this: God invented morality accodring to his whim. Just created everything from nothingness.
In another view...the more Platonic(as Plato is the person who first advocated this view) there is a higher moral order. God is just better at finding it then us...so we should take God's advice on this matter.
I am mainly focusing on the first viewpoint here; which is the one advanced by Christianity.
Also you state that : 'It must further follow that if God knows more than we do, there's a possibility that our definitions of logic, reason, etc., are wrong, and it follows from that, that our whole outlook could be wrong."
This ignores the fact the the very concept of possibility refers to what is logical and/or illogical. Thus what you speak of is really not possible.
Now you will say "impossible for us but possible for God'. But that statment is made by YOU and is thus itself within our logical standards. I am debating with YOU on whether or not its logically possible. You must show how it would be possible for God. You must show how God is going to get beyond our standards.
One can say "by our standards you right but by God's your wrong" but such a statement is unproven and possibly unprovable, as they would have to somehow establish that itself by logic.
Last edited by Logical Realist on 22-02-2002 at 09:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
Ecowitz:
quote:
Morality is basicly a set of rules that define what is termed as Correct Behaviour. |
And what is by that reasoning correct behaviour?
quote:
Does being conscious of the existence of that God help to promote moral atitudes among humans?
That is a different question, harder to answer.
The Christian answer, if I interpret it correctly, takes some further assumptions:
- We, humans, are limited, imperfect beings.
- From this assumption one derives the belief that, without some awareness of God's Will (which could as easilly be defined as that Perfect Set of Moral Rules He knows), all human moral rules are faulty. |
But then again God is just inventing these things. God is moral by definition and the whole system becomes arbitrary.
quote:
- Now, this is the tricky assumption. How can we be sure those that present themselves to be proclaimers of His Will were actual profets other that egomaniacs, nutcrackers, plain con-men or other?
- Basicly we have a coherence test: is their message coherent with that of a Loving, Omniscient God? are their actions coherent with their message (in this latest test one should remember we are talking about humans, not "angels")? |
But you just said that man was too limited to know what was moral. How then do we know our coherence test is right? If I cannot understand God's Will then how will I know if my coherence tests is accurate?
quote:
One should note that there is no human society where we can trace moral rullings to anything else than religious teachings and doctrines - even our now more agnostic and atheist modern societies are based in Christian/Jewish or Confucionist/Budist morals. |
That is not correct. Greeks did it when they went more by philosophy then religion. As do Marxist states. Secular humanists, Objectivists and such still continue to adhere to moral beliefs without a religion. Now you may say they are borrowing from "Judeo/Christian religion" but there is no evidence for that.
In fact though religious morality is often placed behind secular morality even nowadays. Who today does not find the idea of stoning disobediant children(a Mosiac Law dicum) repugnant? I think most would demand that such an act lead to arrest, even though its in the Bible and there is no Biblical Scripture that says such an act is wrong, because we ias a science have a culturally evolved set of morals that often take precedence over over supernaturalist one's.
quote:
Most of you have the same problem as the medieval theologians you criticize....you have waaaayyy too much time on your hands. |
Well certain people like discussing ideas that they consider to be important.
Perhaps we just spend our time doing different things and who's to say that how you decide your time is better then how I decide to spend mine?
I'd rather improve my mind and try to learn about new things and discuss important issues then just mindlessly going through life blindly believing what everyone else tells me is true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
Rogan Josh:
That statement is self-refuting Either it wuld have to be objective, and hence true and therefore false; or subjective itself and therefore not true.
|
'Subjective' does not mean 'untrue'. It can be true to me and to you. You can even assume that it is true for everyone - but that is an assumption.
quote:
Everything in our experiences and imaginations is "Subjective". Most things are not though. Rocks,birds and such are not subjective as they are not inside our minds.
|
How do you know this? How do you know you are not dreaming a la Vanilla Sky?
quote:
That is somewhat of a myth and hyperbolic statement. In Quantumn Mechanics the observer affects what he is observing. That doesn't mean that its subjective(in the mind). Just like I can affect a rock when I throw it, it doesn't mean the rock is subjective. All it means is that we cannot know what the unaffected objewct is like.
|
Something doesn't have to be 'in the mind' to be subjective. From dictionary.com:
quote:
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience. |
It means it is dependent on the point of view of the observer. A fact for one person may not be a fact for another.
quote:
Now people stretch this staement concerning electrons to larger objects. When in reality there is a vaste difference. Just because we affect electrons by measuring them it doesn't mean we affect everything. Those who go by the Quantumn Mechanincs=the entire universe is affected by measurent myth must show why the universe is going to behave like singular electrons.
|
You don't have any training in this at all do you? All systems are quantum mechanically affected by the observer. Most are, of course, far to large for you to notice a difference, which is because of the smallness of hbar,. However, hbar is not zero, so quantum mechanics affects everything. Indeed, any classical physics calculation made is actually an approximation, setting hbar to zero. Quantum mechnics affects every system, so you, the observer, must also affect every system.
This is the very definition of 'subjective'. Your observations are particular to you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Rogan Josh: 'Subjective' does not mean 'untrue'. It can be true to me and to you. You can even assume that it is true for everyone - but that is an assumption. |
What's interesting here is you forget that this would likewise be an "assumption" not a proven fact. And that if my point of view is subjectively true to everyone; you contradict yourself. For then that POV(that it is the same for everyone) would be inconsistent with yours. But if its all subjective, then you can't say my point of view is wrong. In that case you contradict yourself.
quote:
How do you know this? How do you know you are not dreaming a la Vanilla Sky? |
Well knowledge is somewhat contextual in that sense I know because oif what the current evidence indicates. Also because there is a strong sensational difference between dream states and wake states.
In the end though for the concept of dream to have any meaning and for argument to hold any water it must presuppose an objective possibility. For then I would have to be objectively dreaming. Else your statement that I was dreaming would be just mere opinion.
Ok, maybe I was off on the technical definition(in which case you are too by saying its dependent on the point of view of the observer). But by saying everything is subjective you are saying that everything has personal experiences. In that case rocks, bricks etc. all have personal experiences.
And not everything is dependent on point of view. That radical claim must go. You don't seem to recognize that if what you are saying is true, 1) You contradict yourself for that would then be your point of view. and
2) You can never prove that for proof presupposes some obbjective standards.
In either case there is no reason to accept your statement and reason to reject it.
quote:
You don't have any training in this at all do you? All systems are quantum mechanically affected by the observer. Most are, of course, far to large for you to notice a difference, which is because of the smallness of hbar,. However, hbar is not zero, so quantum mechanics affects everything. Indeed, any classical physics calculation made is actually an approximation, setting hbar to zero. Quantum mechnics affects every system, so you, the observer, must also affect every system.
This is the very definition of 'subjective'. Your observations are particular to you. |
Among Skeptics the nonsense of which you speak is called Quantumn Quackery. This sort of thing happens with any new or not too well understood science. With evolution it turned into social Darwinism, with Newtonian physics into Hobbesian psychology and such. This is when a claim or grain of truth is blown totally out of proportion by people with an ideological agenda.
In this case with Quantumn Mechanics that you claim "proves" EVERYTHING is subjective. How so? By showing that when you try to measure an electron, you hit it with a light ray affecting its motion. Not too compelling friend. That sort of non sequitur reasoning is the exact same sort of nonsense that people were advocating when they were drawing links between the orbits of planets in the solar system and the "orbits" of electrons around the nucleus.
You say this affect is subjective and personal...then you say it is measurable. If more then one person can measure the effect it is objective. Also keep in mind this affect is insignificant, and hence in no way makes everything "Personal". Or determined by individual point of view. If that was true I could wish Quantumn Mechanics out of existence.
You are taking some minor effect and assuming that since I effect an object it is then "personal". Thus if I throw a roc(affecting the rock)...that was subjective. It takes more then just me affecting an object to make it personal. Or dependent on my point of view. The effects you speak of are measurable by more then one person. And in that way are objective. The fact that there is an affect, as well as the affect itself is also objective. Also this fails to explain how rocks and such are subjective. You're main flaw is that you assume that if an object is affected by the obsever...it is now subjective. No matter how small the affect is. That premise is yet to be justified and until it is, not to be believed; by all save the New Age mystics who feed on this sort of pseudoscientific nonsense.
Last edited by Logical Realist on 21-02-2002 at 05:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecowiz Returns
|
 |
Portugal
Aug 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
First of all, I have to stress this one point you seem to have forgoten, although so many of the other posters already presented it.
The legitimacy of a Morality established by God comes, not from His Omnipotence, but His Omniscience.
I can't grasp why it is, for you, logically incoherent, that an entity that has all the knowledge of all the things has, also, the knowledge of the set of behaviours that will ensure our individual and social happiness.
Now, on your remarks:
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
And what is by that reasoning correct behaviour?
|
Is that really the question? I though the question was that Christian morality is based on the existence of a more powerfull entity which, whether right or wrong, simply imposes her rules by force. I'm trying to demonstrate that the reasoning you present as Christian is not the Christian reasoning.
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
But then again God is just inventing these things. God is moral by definition and the whole system becomes arbitrary.
|
Look, when the religious belief is that God is All Knowing, therefore certainly much more knowledgable than all human Sages put togheter, things end up seeming pretty much arbitrary.
However, a Omniscient God does not invent anything: invention entail discouvery and discouvery requires that a priori you don't have the knowledge - but then, you wouldn't be omniscient, would you?
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
But you just said that man was too limited to know what was moral.
|
Did I? Maybe I didn't expressed myself correctly.
Let's see
quote:
Originally posted by me
- We, humans, are limited, imperfect beings.
- From this assumption one derives the belief that, without some awareness of God's Will (which could as easilly be defined as that Perfect Set of Moral Rules He knows), all human moral rules are faulty.
|
So, I said, the human definition of moral behaviour is faulty. With this, I meant, it was imperfect, incomplete, not plain wrong as you seem to have understood. You could also note that the assumption states "without some awareness of God's Will".
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
How then do we know our coherence test is right? If I cannot understand God's Will then how will I know if my coherence tests is accurate?
|
As with everything else, in science for instance, one of the tests you put on new propositions is wheter or not they conform with established theory.
I agree it's not a perfect process. According to the New Testament, Jesus was condemned by the Jewish authorities (the Sinedrium) due to some actions that were said to be against God's Law, in those days (like healing in the Temple, preaching outside the Sinagogs in a Saturday, dinning with "impure" people...). But, then again, this process is performed by Human Beings (limited, remember), so it is bound to fail, sometimes. One of the Ten Comandments warn us not to call upon God's name in vain - I believe it was meant to situations such as these, also. One should not blame God of having wrong rullings just because some people say that a wrong rulling is Word of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
That is not correct. Greeks did it when they went more by philosophy then religion. As do Marxist states. Secular humanists, Objectivists and such still continue to adhere to moral beliefs without a religion. Now you may say they are borrowing from "Judeo/Christian religion" but there is no evidence for that.
|
Sorry, but, other than the Greek Civilization (and one may question the morality of not respecting women, nor foreigners, nor slaves, for instance), The other examples, even if not explicitly, borrow their moral rules from the religious moral rules.
Because I know that you will question the examples I gave on imoral rulings in Ancient Greece, oposing them to similar imoral rulings of the Catholic church, for instance, I ask you to remember much of those rulings were latter considered imoral by the Catholic Church itself, and some of them are being questioned right now. That come to say that, as I stated before, it's not a perfect process, but it's not God's blaim. If He is Omniscient, the is no reason for Him to change His mind. Interpretations is paramount, again (and that, of course was proven wrong too many times already).
As I said, this is tricky business were handling here.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Logical Realist
In fact though religious morality is often placed behind secular morality even nowadays. Who today does not find the idea of stoning disobediant children(a Mosiac Law dicum) repugnant? I think most would demand that such an act lead to arrest, even though its in the Bible and there is no Biblical Scripture that says such an act is wrong, because we ias a science have a culturally evolved set of morals that often take precedence over over supernaturalist one's.
[QUOTE]
Aren't you confusing disobedient children with some more serious ofenses?
And by the way, aren't you forgetting that Jesus, Himself, (again according to the New Testament) stoped the stoning of a alegedly adulterous woman, 2000 year ago? Who would have said He was such a modern guy after all?
As you can see, there was something in the Bible that said that act was wrong, after all!
I confess my ignorance on the desobedient child charge but I hope the example I gave you with something society states as more serious crime serves to disprove your point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
In fact though religious morality is often placed behind secular morality even nowadays. Who today does not find the idea of stoning disobediant children(a Mosiac Law dicum) repugnant? I think most would demand that such an act lead to arrest, even though its in the Bible and there is no Biblical Scripture that says such an act is wrong, because we ias a science have a culturally evolved set of morals that often take precedence over over supernaturalist one's. |
Evolved, huh? In an eternal perspective it is absurd to say we are superior and evolved at least if we relate this to the future. And yes we have evolved. The earth is worse off today then at the beginning. We have evolved allright... in the wrong direction. Take a quick glance of history and you'll see the light.
Please give med scriptural reference to the stoning of children.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Let's try again.
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
What's interesting here is you forget that this would likewise be an "assumption" not a proven fact.
|
I agree that this would be an assumption. But I never said this point of view was true, so I make no assumption. I am only saying that it may be true, and you cannot disprove it.
quote:
Ok, maybe I was off on the technical definition(in which case you are too by saying its dependent on the point of view of the observer). But by saying everything is subjective you are saying that everything has personal experiences. In that case rocks, bricks etc. all have personal experiences.
|
How do you know that rocks and bricks exist? Maybe they are mere artifacts of your brain?
quote:
And not everything is dependent on point of view. That radical claim must go. You don't seem to recognize that if what you are saying is true, 1) You contradict yourself for that would then be your point of view. and
2) You can never prove that for proof presupposes some obbjective standards.
|
I don't understand your reasoning here. How can me having a point of view contradict the idea that everyone has a different view of reality? As to the second point, I certainly do not claim to prove this statement - indeed I do not believe it to be true (on a macroscopic scale), but I recognise our inability to disprove it.
quote:
Among Skeptics the nonsense of which you speak is called Quantumn Quackery. This sort of thing happens with any new or not too well understood science. With evolution it turned into social Darwinism, with Newtonian physics into Hobbesian psychology and such. This is when a claim or grain of truth is blown totally out of proportion by people with an ideological agenda.
|
Quantum Quackery?  Quantum mechanics has been around for nearly a cerntuary and is perfectly well understood.
quote:
In this case with Quantumn Mechanics that you claim "proves" EVERYTHING is subjective. How so? By showing that when you try to measure an electron, you hit it with a light ray affecting its motion. Not too compelling friend. That sort of non sequitur reasoning is the exact same sort of nonsense that people were advocating when they were drawing links between the orbits of planets in the solar system and the "orbits" of electrons around the nucleus.
|
This is not the point at all. It is not about 'when you try to measure an electron, you hit it with a light ray affecting its motion'. This is not a quantum phenomena at all - it happens in classical theory too.
The point here is that in the quantum theory the quantity which you are measuring often has no value until you measure it, and someone else measuring exactly the same thing in exactly the same way as you could get a completely different answer purely because the wavefunction collapses differently and he picks out a different eigenvalue. Therefore quantum mechnics is subjective in the sense that no single quantum event is reproducable. In experiment, only large statistical distributions are measured, which can be predicted.
quote:
You say this affect is subjective and personal...then you say it is measurable. If more then one person can measure the effect it is objective.
|
No. Are you claiming that just because more than one person believes that the Canadian ice-skaters deserved gold it became an objective fact?
quote:
If that was true I could wish Quantumn Mechanics out of existence.
|
Your reality being specific only to you gives you no more power over it than you would have over an objective reality.
quote:
You're main flaw is that you assume that if an object is affected by the obsever...it is now subjective. No matter how small the affect is.
|
No - I am saying that if the existence of an object is dependent on the observer then its reality is subjective (which is just a definition). This is true in quantum mechanics - the values which are being measured do not exist before the measurment is made. The state vector of the object is in a superposition of different state vectors which have different values for the observable. When the measurement is made, one of these state vectors is chosen (at random - though with fixed probabilities) and the object is no longer a superposition. of states (for the observable in question). The reality of the measurement is forced by the observer.
There have been many attempts to find some sort of hidden variable theory lieing behind quantum mechanics in which this randomness or dependence on the observer (subjectivity!) is merely an illusion created by the hidden variables, but thus far none have been successfull.
quote:
the New Age mystics who feed on this sort of pseudoscientific nonsense. |
 That is the first time I have ever been called a 'New Age Mystic'!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
There is a famous experiment in which an opaque screen with two slits is placed in front of a light source; the light source shines through the slits and lands on another screen. The light waves that come through the slits interfere with one another, producing a banded pattern of light and dark stripes on the screen.
The experiment was then done with an electron beam that fires single electrons, and the second opaque screen is replaced by an electron detector. Even though single electrons are fired at the screen with slits, the individual electrons still behave like waveforms and interfere with one another, producing the same light-and-dark bands on the electron detector as the light source produced on the opaque screen. This means that each electron actually goes through both slits at the same time.
An electron gate was then placed in front of each of the two slits in order to detect this phenomenon; if an electron passes through a gate, then its passage is recorded. It was found that each electron only went through a single gate, not both as expected. However, the light-and-dark bands disappeared from the second screen, the electron detector; the electrons behaved like particles, not waveforms.
This is how observation fundamentally changes the nature of reality. Electrons are perfectly content to behave like waves, but as soon as you look at one it immediately begins to behave like a particle. Turn your back, and they're waves again. Which just goes to show that somebody somewhere is playing a huge practical joke on us. I blame the leprechauns, personally...
Last edited by loinburger on 21-02-2002 at 22:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
There is a famous experiment in which an opaque screen with two slits is placed in front of a light source; the light source shines through the slits and lands on another screen. |
This experiment was first done by Young - so it is known as Young's slits experiment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
mac: lr is a christian hater. lol. perhaps that's being strong...but seriously..he can go on and on and one and one about this stuff.
as for mr. realist and the rest of you: how can you even keep track of what is being said. this whole thread is filled with jargon to the point where my eyes cross. perhaps, before you continue ripping each others throats out, you should get a clear set of base definitions to work from and then...have at it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
Ramo: (on self-refuting subjectivism):
quote:
Nope, that would actually also be a subjective statement. It operates under certain unspoken assumptions, namely that the structure of our logical system is valid. |
That is a sort of relativism in which all belief is assumption. Again this faces the problem of all such systems in that it is impossible to prove and as such a matter of faith. If proven it is self-refuting and as such is absurd. You say its all assumption...that's nice now prove THAT without making "assumptions". Such a viewpoint leads to nothing but confusion and is brought on by a confusion of two things.
1) All beliefs and standards begin at a certain starting points.
2) All these starting points are equally true assumption.
People who assume such a foundational relatavist viewpoint think that by proving claim 1; they've proven claim 2. When in reality there is a big difference. Just because all beliefs are begin with certain axioms(starting points) it does not follow that all axioms are equally true and arbitrary assumptions.
Thus while I admit point 1, I reject point 2 as self-refuting and unporvable. To admit point 2 one would have to say that the Law of Noncontradiction is an "assumption" and hence that 2+2 can = 14, in which case the very idea of point 2 itself becomes that of mere opinion. To be more explicit, if point 2 were ever proven or accepted: its opposite (that all starting points(axioms) are nt equal) can be accepted at the same trime. That to me is aburd and hence to be rejected by any logical system and is hence an unproven matter of faith.
Rogan Josh:
quote:
I agree that this would be an assumption. But I never said this point of view was true, so I make no assumption. I am only saying that it may be true, and you cannot disprove it. |
See above for the disprove. I have shown how your viewpoint is contradictory. That is disproof.
Now you say that my argument does not apply because you aren't saying that your viewpoint is necessarily true, however you don't have to say it. For I am saying that your viewpoint cannot be true and is automatically to be considered false(and disproven) in logic.
This is because the subjectivist options are this:
Either subjectivism is true, in which case there is no truth or falsehood. In which case both objectivism and subjectivism are true at the same time(cause if there is no right or wrong, objectivism cannot be wrong). This is contradictory. And hence false in logic.
or
Subjectivism is false. In which case we should just ditch it.
Such a disproof is known as reducing your argument to absurdity. It means that one disproves your claim by assuming its true and seeing if applied constistently it leads to absurdities(contradictions and such.) If it does lead to absurdity(as subjectivism clearly does) then it is disproven. Since to be illogical is what it means to be disproven. Such a method is among the oldest and most valid ways of disproving a given claim and has been around as long as logic itself.
To say that a given claim has not been disproven after that claim has been reduced to absurd, is to discard the very standards of proof altogether. You are at that point asking me to "disprove" your claim while expecting me to abandon ALL standards of proof. Of curse such a task is impossible. That's like saying "show me without having me actually use my eyes" or actually see the thing. Now does that mean your statement was not "disproven"...no. It means that you will not accept the disproof. Just like I don't have to accept that I'm actually seeing what I'm seeing.
quote:
How do you know that rocks and bricks exist? Maybe they are mere artifacts of your brain? |
Before you said "everything is subjective" now you're saying everything "might be" subjective.
I "know" rocks and bricks exist because I can see them. Now you ask "how do I know they exist objectively"? I know this because objectivism is more logical then subjectivism and logic is a way of "knowing". Also because rocks and bricks do not behave in ways that one would expect them to if they were imagined. I cannot for example lift them up with my mind as I could an imaginary object. They're behavious also tends to be uniform, and predictable, while dream or imaginary objects tend to behave in very arbitrary non-causal ways.
In any sense I was not saying that I knew they existed objectively. I didn't know the existence of bricks and rocks ws under debate. You seem to assume they exist, and under such an assumption: I was asking if they were subjective? Obviously the answer is no.
quote:
I don't understand your reasoning here. How can me having a point of view contradict the idea that everyone has a different view of reality? |
I'll explain. You are not saying that people just have different views of reality but that these different viewpoints ARE reality. That's what subjectivism is. And in subjectivism all point of views are true.
Now what if my point of view is that subjectivism is false and that objectivism is true?
According to the subjectivist viewpoint my antisubjectivist claim would be just as true as the subjectivist one...that situation would be contradictory, asburd and hence disproven. If disproven it is wrong.
Hence the subjectivist viewpoint IF true(in which case its opposite is true) leads to contradictions. It is then wrong. Notice I say IF true, meaning even if claimed to be true or not.
The only alternative to "if it being true" is "If it is false" such a position contains no contradictions and is hence more logical. There must be some absolute,objective, rules . That is necessary. NOw whether or not a given specific object, is objective or subjective is determined by more specific emprirical standards. Whether or not what we see is part of the "objective world" or made up is questionable and only probable. That there is an objective world is logically absolute, that the given one we see is objective is questionable and contextual. In either case subjectivism cannot be true. In that case standards must be set up empirically(by observation and ostensible definitions).
quote:
Quantum Quackery? Quantum mechanics has been around for nearly a cerntuary and is perfectly well understood. |
I am not questioning the truth of Quantum Mechanics but your interpretation and extension of it to all areas of philosophy.
quote:
The point here is that in the quantum theory the quantity which you are measuring often has no value until you measure it, and someone else measuring exactly the same thing in exactly the same way as you could get a completely different answer purely because the wavefunction collapses differently and he picks out a different eigenvalue. Therefore quantum mechnics is subjective in the sense that no single quantum event is reproducable. In experiment, only large statistical distributions are measured, which can be predicted |
This whole thing of which you speak has many explanations offered to explain why this happens, none of them definitive and very few subjectivist. There are recognized limits to Quantum Mechanics, like the fact that no Quantum observations have been superluminal(faster then light) and hence are limited by physical laws.
Like I said though there is no definitive theory for why Quantum Mechanical observations like light wave collapses, happen as they do. There are both subjectivist and materialist explanations offered but no one seems to be proven yet. Thus the whole subjectivist position remains a topic in philosophy that must stand on its own merits. Not one's borrowed by Quantum Mechanics.
quote:
No. Are you claiming that just because more than one person believes that the Canadian ice-skaters deserved gold it became an objective fact? |
People believing this does not make it measurable. Notice though that I'm not saying that the inability to measure an object makes it subjective, only that the ability for many people to measure its affects does.
quote:
Your reality being specific only to you gives you no more power over it than you would have over an objective reality. |
I believe it does. You going to say my belief is wrong?
quote:
No - I am saying that if the existence of an object is dependent on the observer then its reality is subjective (which is just a definition). This is true in quantum mechanics - the values which are being measured do not exist before the measurment is made. The state vector of the object is in a superposition of different state vectors which have different values for the observable. When the measurement is made, one of these state vectors is chosen (at random - though with fixed probabilities) and the object is no longer a superposition. of states (for the observable in question). The reality of the measurement is forced by the observer. |
That is flawed reasoning in that you assume that since we only know the object exists when we see it, that our lack of knowledge equal a lack of existence. Hence if a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat and we don't know how he did it...must be the rabbit just "appeared" out of nowhere. Or that the rabbit only exists when we see it. The whole Schrodinger;'s Cat analofy comes up. (The whole analogy was a satire of Quantum Mechanical conclusions by the way). The values are not "known" until the measurement is made, they may exist but are not known. There is a difference between knwoing the value of something and an object having a value. Or the object's value changing with observation and the object not having a value. Obviously these object's are not superliminal so are limited in some way. To discard this is to discard logic and go by faith. In which case your theory is very,very weak especially when other more logical theories are available.
Not that your Quantum Mechancal theory was the first abuse of science. Every new branch of science or anamoly(unexplained event) is usually used to support some form of subjectivism or supernaturalism. This is nothing more then the argument from ignorance given a face lift. You are saying that since there is no objective explanation readily available...it must be subjective.
I will end by quoting Victor J. Stenger(professor of physics and astronomy) at the University of Hawaii on this abuse:
quote:
Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.
However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.
The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle's appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light.
No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
DF, I didn't missed your points. Your points were in fact the last one's I criticized. Though I didn't make that clear as I should have. My apologized and the error has been corrected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
EcoWiz:quote:
Is that really the question? I though the question was that Christian morality is based on the existence of a more powerfull entity which, whether right or wrong, simply imposes her rules by force. I'm trying to demonstrate that the reasoning you present as Christian is not the Christian reasoning. |
Here you totally evaded the issue. I'm asking if morality is defined by "correcr behavior" what then is correct behavior?
quote:
Look, when the religious belief is that God is All Knowing, therefore certainly much more knowledgable than all human Sages put togheter, things end up seeming pretty much arbitrary.
However, a Omniscient God does not invent anything: invention entail discouvery and discouvery requires that a priori you don't have the knowledge - but then, you wouldn't be omniscient, would you? |
Here you're confusing many things:
You seem to at one moment posit that morality is something that exists without God or uncreated by God. And that God in his Omnsicience discovered this morality where manind could not. Such a theory deserves its own criticism and is not what I'm talking about in my post.
What I'm talking about is the Christian view that the universe without God loses morality...is naturally amoral. In this view God is just pushing his arbitrary dictums on humanity by means of using his strength.
In this view "morals" are just what God makes up. That's what I'm criticizing.
Now you say "Christianity doesn't say this" but then what about the test of Abraham? All the immoral things that later on became moral? About how the universe without God HAS no morals...not ignorant of morals...has no morals. That God is where all morals come from. Expressed ultimately, that without God, its all relativism. Now I ask...how does this change with God? The only significant difference over manknd here, that would make his "opinion" better then ours in this matter is his power.
See if it was just a matter of God being smarter, then morality would not just become opinion without God. There would still be right and wrong, we'd just be too stupid to figure out what right and wrong is. But that's not what is said. Christians say that without God "there is no morality". Meaning that morality is based on God's power. Heaven and hell. That what keeps mankind moral is "fear of hell" sounds like power is running it to me. And also in Christianity Gods word=morality by definition. Again that sounds like power is running it, as if that's true;if God says to rape, then rape becomes moral. If it was intellect then God's word wouldn't always be moral, in which case the atrocities in the Bible can be questioned.
As far as I see what you seem to be saying then, in a way, is that iots not the power of God that makes his rules moral. But God's intellect, in which case morality is determined by who is smartest. Still sounds like a dictatorship to me.
Your statement that all secular societies "borrowed" their morality from religion is unproven. Greek society also did not change because it died out, so your comparison to the Catholic Church is kind of unfair. Also even though it had slaves, it still had morals, some immorality on its part does not negate morality as a whole.
Also as for the Catholic's immoral behavior changing. I find it odd how the Chruch dedicated to preserving Christianity and studying the Bible would misinterpret the scripture for almost a thousand years.
As for the Mosiac law commanding that one stone a child, here it is:
quote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son.... bring him unto the elders of his city.... And all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you..." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
That is a sort of relativism in which all belief is assumption. |
Bingo.
quote:
Again this faces the problem of all such systems in that it is impossible to prove and as such a matter of faith.
[quote]If proven it is self-refuting and as such is absurd. |
The assertion is a logical structure, and as such, relies implicitly on the rules of logic.
A system is not logically false unless it's self-contradicting. Any such system is perfectly logically valid.
I could say that what your life is in fact a simulation, and that nothing you interact with exists outside of a computer. That's as perfectly valid as the assertion that you are a real human being, and the objects that you interact with are real.
quote:
You say its all assumption...that's nice now prove THAT without making "assumptions". |
Didn't I just say that the assumptions are the rules of logic? 
quote:
Such a viewpoint leads to nothing but confusion and is brought on by a confusion of two things. |
Why am I getting the feeling that you're making this much more complex than it needs to be?
quote:
1) All beliefs and standards begin at a certain starting points. |
Yep, that's what I'm saying.
quote:
2) All these starting points are equally true assumption. |
Why should truth values be attached to baseless assumptions? They're meaningless.
quote:
People who assume such a foundational relatavist viewpoint think that by proving claim 1; they've proven claim 2. |
Evidence?
quote:
When in reality there is a big difference. Just because all beliefs are begin with certain axioms(starting points) it does not follow that all axioms are equally true and arbitrary assumptions.
[quote]To admit point 2 one would have to say that the Law of Noncontradiction is an "assumption" |
And it is.
quote:
and hence that 2+2 can = 14, in which case the very idea of point 2 itself becomes that of mere opinion. |
These characters aren't inherently meaningful, and algebraic statements aren't inherently true or false. They gain truth only with assumptions (for example, how is the addition of real numbers defined?).
quote:
To be more explicit, if point 2 were ever proven or accepted: its opposite (that all starting points(axioms) are nt equal) can be accepted at the same trime. |
Why?
quote:
Before you said "everything is subjective" now you're saying everything "might be" subjective. |
RJ is saying that they "might be" another interpretations. In other words, that the interpretations are subjective.
quote:
(The whole analogy was a satire of Quantum Mechanical conclusions by the way) |
Just the Probabilistic interpretation (Schrodinger, like Einstein, being among the proponants of the Deterministic interpretation, which died out half a century ago).
quote:
The values are not "known" until the measurement is made, they may exist but are not known. |
The values don't exist until you collapse the wave function. That's why the values may be different, depending on the observer.
quote:
To discard this is to discard logic and go by faith. In which case your theory is very,very weak especially when other more logical theories are available. |
To stick with classical logic theories despite experimentation to the contrary is to go by faith.
quote:
I will end by quoting Victor J. Stenger(professor of physics and astronomy) |
It might be prudent to point out that RJ is also a professor of physics. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
Your post totally skips over what my point was.
I'll try to explain it better, on 2, if all assumptions are equal, then my assumption, "that all assumptions are not equal" would have to be equal to that.
Me:quote:
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
You say its all assumption...that's nice now prove THAT without making "assumptions".
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
Ramo:quote:
Didn't I just say that the assumptions are the rules of logic? |
Yes I asked you to prove that assumptions are the rules of logic. Your comment there in no way proved that.
quote:
Why should truth values be attached to baseless assumptions? They're meaningless. |
Well then are you saying that asumptions are not equal?This shouldn't be too hard to figure out but I'll help you.
By "equally true" the person who said 2 is saying "all assumptions are equal" there is a big gap between claim 1 and claim 2.
If it's all assumption then there is no evidence. You say all belief is unwarranted assumption, then ask for evidence as a standard.
-(On me saying that the law of noncontradiction is posited as an assumption in the subjectivist viewpoint
And it isn't. According to you my claim is equal to yours.
quote:
These characters aren't inherently meaningful, and algebraic statements aren't inherently true or false. They gain truth only with assumptions (for example, how is the addition of real numbers defined?). |
Ostensibly. And yes they have inherit meaning as symbols that represent quantities.
Then again though, the above statement was just an assumptions anyways, as is that statement, as is the statement that the prior statement was an assumption in your system according to you.
quote:
Just the Probabilistic interpretation (Schrodinger, like Einstein, being among the proponants of the Deterministic interpretation, which died out half a century ago). |
The deterministic interpretation has always been the more logical of the two. Then again he above is just your assumption...perhaps there is no Quantum Mehcanics. Your just assuming there is...and that it proves something. If its all assumption then its ALL assumption.
quote:
To stick with classical logic theories despite experimentation to the contrary is to go by faith. |
Actually that is to go by reason. To ditch logic in order to embrace a given interpretation is to go by faith.
quote:
The values don't exist until you collapse the wave function. |
Question begging. How do you know they don't exist? Maybe they do without you knowing.
quote:
It might be prudent to point out that RJ is also a professor of physics. |
Like I said phycisists disagree on the issue as many physicists are as succeptible to idealogical irrationalism as the rest of us. The fact that a physicists disagrees with RJ maybe shows that Quantum Mechanics is not as definitevely pro-subjectivist as he would have us believe.
Last edited by Logical Realist on 22-02-2002 at 11:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
connorkimbro
|
 |
Seoul Korea
Jan 1970
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
The answer is, it doesn't; not really. In reality it just puts one being's opinion higher than another, something that the Christian said was already impossible. |
Not necessarily. Most intelligent christians would argue the following: That God does not arbitrarily decide what is a sin, and what is not a sin, but that a thing is a sin because it is contrary to his nature, IE, even God himself could not be any other way. For example, because God is honest, lying is a sin. Given that, they'd still have to show that each and every sin is based on God's nature, and NOT arbitrary . . . my only contribution is that it is not NECESSARILY arbitrary or based on the "opinion" of a higher being.
Reading the rest of your post, this pretty much answers the rest of it as well.
My apologies if I repeat what's been said, I only have read the initial post so far.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
connorkimbro
|
|
Seoul Korea
Jan 1970
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
I don't recall seeing this answered elsewhere on the thread, and if it has then I apologize in advance:
How do we know that God is Good? Even if we grant that there is a God, and that He is omniscient (and therefore has perfect knowledge what is Good and what is Evil), how do we know for certain that He is going to tell us the truth?
This is especially important if it is assumed that God created both Good and Evil; if it is assumed otherwise, then it must also be explained how God can be omnipotent despite the fact that Evil was brought into the universe without his consent by an independent entity or force. This is a different can of worms altogether, though; my primary concern is with the first question. |
Very interesting questions, both of them. Let me point out that I'm an Atheist, just to clear up any confusion, and now let me posit an answer.
1) By correctly percieving the nature of what we presume God has created, we can correctly know his nature. We see that nature is non-contradictory. Therefore we know that the God that created nature is non-contradictory. We see that existance exists. We know therefore that creation, not destruction is God's nature. Given these two, God can only be creative in nature not destructive.
From whence comes evil then? Not from God, but rather from corruption of what God has made by an independant will. God, having granted free will to entities other than himself, allowed evil to come about, without sanctioning it and without contradicting his nature. However, this evil DOES contradict his nature, and thus cannot be allowed to continute to exist. Thus God "destroying" evil isn't acting against his nature, but rather keeping himself, and his creation, non-contradictory in nature.
Granted, there are some leaps, and some assumptions there, but that's a rather streamlined version of a possible answer. . .
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-02-2002 22:36
|