|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 05/15/2010 : 10:28:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
So the position can be argued against, but not argued for, without being articulated? |
No, positions that can't be articulated don't need to be argued against because they don't even rise to the level of an argument. Incoherent positions can simply be dismissed as incoherent.
| Conceivability at this time is not a necessity for something being true. |
Conceivability of a proposition at this time is necessary for making a coherent argument based on that proposition at this time.
We define circles. We define squares. There is no physical counterpart to these structure, we invented them. We are able to invent and impose a logical framework on these concepts, making them impossible to reconcile. There can be nothing wrong with our definitions when we invent a logical system. We cannot impose such a framework on the physical world because we don't even understand it.
|
Wikipedia defines time as "part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects."
So time is inherently entwined with action by definition. Without time, there can be no such thing as independent events. There cannot be, by definition, an action which occurs "outside" of time.
This is not merely some arbitrary definition of time cooked up based on our past observations. This is what time is. It's what we mean when we use the word.
Postulating the existence of action without time is like saying "imagine a Universe where there is no down, only up." Such a statement is logically impossible because it is definitionally incoherent. Up and down may be physical properties of our Universe, but they are also fundamentally related concepts. There cannot be down without up, since up is defined in relation to down and vice versa. There may be alternate realities where there is neither down nor up, but there cannot be a reality where only one exists in absence of the other. And one cannot simply say "we can imagine a Universe where there is no down, only up, if there is something wrong with our definition of down," since without down there is no coherent definition of up either.
In the same way, it is not possible to have action without time or time without action. The phenomenon of action is what defines time. Change the definition and we are no longer talking about time but something else. Whatever this mysterious phenomenon is that you can't even articulate, it isn't time.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/15/2010 10:53:29 |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 11:15:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
But their claims must at least be logically coherent. A being that exists apart from time but also acts is insensible in the same way that a round circle is. It can't exist by definition. So a god which exists outside of time is not a merely bad logical argument, it is the complete abrogation of logic masquerading as an argument.
|
So the big question is " What can we do to get people to see these obvious errors of logic?". I mean...there just HAS to be a way isn't there?
|
If rational arguments worked on religious people.... there would be no religious people.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 11:31:21 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli said:
| Explain to Joe-16th-century-six-pack that, even hypothetically, that light is particles and gets sucked into black holes that are trillions of miles away. He could not conceive this, it would seem absurd and self-contradictory to him. |
So people from the 16th century are incapable of understanding? This is a very bizarre statement for you to make. I'd bet that with the proper amount of time you could explain early 20th century physics to a person from the 16th century and they would understand just fine.
| We cannot impose such a framework on the physical world because we don't even understand it. |
That is complete nonsense. What you mean to say, perhaps, is that we don't understand all of it. In no way does that make it impossible to observe logical systems in the parts we do understand. The fact that we don't understand everything about the universe just means that we can't impose absolute certainty on our conclusions when we speak broadly. As we narrow things down though we can obtain enough certainty about specific things to make predictions through the use of those pesky "logical systems".
But you seem to be saying that we can't ever conclude something is impossible. You'd be in error if that is the case.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 12:10:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Machi4velli said:
| Explain to Joe-16th-century-six-pack that, even hypothetically, that light is particles and gets sucked into black holes that are trillions of miles away. He could not conceive this, it would seem absurd and self-contradictory to him. |
So people from the 16th century are incapable of understanding? This is a very bizarre statement for you to make. I'd bet that with the proper amount of time you could explain early 20th century physics to a person from the 16th century and they would understand just fine. |
Nope, you'd be burned as a witch before you could finish. My point is that the 16th century person would have to see that their definitions of what they would consider basic concepts that "cannot be wrong" are actually wrong. We're clinging to time as we experience it, but that isn't justified.
| We cannot impose such a framework on the physical world because we don't even understand it. |
That is complete nonsense. What you mean to say, perhaps, is that we don't understand all of it. In no way does that make it impossible to observe logical systems in the parts we do understand. The fact that we don't understand everything about the universe just means that we can't impose absolute certainty on our conclusions when we speak broadly. As we narrow things down though we can obtain enough certainty about specific things to make predictions through the use of those pesky "logical systems". |
What does enough certainty mean? "Certainty" would seem to be a binary matter. Empiricism cannot give logical proof, it's just not possible.
| But you seem to be saying that we can't ever conclude something is impossible. You'd be in error if that is the case. |
That's fair, I don't think we can conclude anything with absolute certainty through empiricism, other than statements about the past. I don't think concluding things with absolute certainty is necessary, however. We can make conclusions in a more tentative sense, so that we act as if they are true, but knowing full well we could be wrong. I'm completely comfortable saying religious persons probably have no justification whatsoever to believe what they believe, but I cannot say they are impossible. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 12:23:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Machi4velli
So the position can be argued against, but not argued for, without being articulated? |
No, positions that can't be articulated don't need to be argued against because they don't even rise to the level of an argument. Incoherent positions can simply be dismissed as incoherent. |
But when you dismiss it, it must be a matter of pragmatism, not proof of its falseness. Assuming it as true would be a bad precedent intellectually of course, but the status of such a dismissed proposition is not that "it is false," but rather "I don't know, but I have no reason to believe it."
| Conceivability at this time is not a necessity for something being true. |
Conceivability of a proposition at this time is necessary for making a coherent argument based on that proposition at this time. |
To argue for the proposition as true, yes, but not to show that the argument is not necessarily impossible.
We define circles. We define squares. There is no physical counterpart to these structure, we invented them. We are able to invent and impose a logical framework on these concepts, making them impossible to reconcile. There can be nothing wrong with our definitions when we invent a logical system. We cannot impose such a framework on the physical world because we don't even understand it.
|
Wikipedia defines time as "part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects." |
You're arguing based on the definitions that could be errant. Also from the wikipedia article:
"Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars."
| So time is inherently entwined with action by definition. Without time, there can be no such thing as independent events. There cannot be, by definition, an action which occurs "outside" of time. |
You're arguing about language, not the physical world.
| This is not merely some arbitrary definition of time cooked up based on our past observations. This is what time is. It's what we mean when we use the word. |
From what source do we know what time is? We invented this definition, so we do not have a guarantee it necessarily characterizes the physical world. We've already changed our conception of it before in science. Time used to be defined as an invariant parameter, not one that can expand and contract.
| In the same way, it is not possible to have action without time or time without action. The phenomenon of action is what defines time. Change the definition and we are no longer talking about time but something else. Whatever this mysterious phenomenon is that you can't even articulate, it isn't time. |
And space can't be space if it's curved, right? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 12:32:46 [Permalink]
|
| Postulating the existence of action without time is like saying "imagine a Universe where there is no down, only up." Such a statement is logically impossible because it is definitionally incoherent. Up and down may be physical properties of our Universe, but they are also fundamentally related concepts. There cannot be down without up, since up is defined in relation to down and vice versa. There may be alternate realities where there is neither down nor up, but there cannot be a reality where only one exists in absence of the other. And one cannot simply say "we can imagine a Universe where there is no down, only up, if there is something wrong with our definition of down," since without down there is no coherent definition of up either. |
There is hardly consensus on what time is.
This is David Hume's battle from two centuries ago. Empiricism does not and cannot provide logical proof of anything. It is based solely on our perceptions, in which we cannot have absolute confidence, making logical proof elusive. Logical proof is a stronger standard than empirical proof. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 13:35:37 [Permalink]
|
| But when you dismiss it, it must be a matter of pragmatism, not proof of its falseness. Assuming it as true would be a bad precedent intellectually of course, but the status of such a dismissed proposition is not that "it is false," but rather "I don't know, but I have no reason to believe it." |
"I don't know, but I have no reason to believe it." typically gives a false impression. It sounds like you are saying the idea is plausible, until you realize that the tooth fairy falls into this category.
| Logical proof is a stronger standard than empirical proof. |
Logical proof is a useless concept when dealing with anything that lies outside of logic. With that said, when people talk of "impossibility" they rarely speak of "logical impossibility". Likewise, when people speak of mathematical or physical impossibilities, they are speaking of the commonly accepted framework within each of these disciplines. For example, division by zero is by no means impossible, you can define mathematical frame works where you can indeed divide by zero (the structure is called a "wheel"). But when I say it is impossible to divide by zero, I mean "In the standard accepted mathematical framework, it is impossible to divide by the real number zero."
Edited to add: Though I still maintain it is entirely possible for me to poop out an SUV. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 05/15/2010 13:41:43 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 17:02:00 [Permalink]
|
Hume's analysis of inductive logic aside, certainty is not a binary proposition. There are differing degrees. The word to describe it is "probability".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 19:17:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Logical proof is a useless concept when dealing with anything that lies outside of logic. |
Agreed.
| With that said, when people talk of "impossibility" they rarely speak of "logical impossibility". |
I didn't invoke logic here. I said it was a celestial teapot situation. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 19:19:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Hume's analysis of inductive logic aside, certainty is not a binary proposition. There are differing degrees. The word to describe it is "probability". |
I was taking the word "certainty" to mean, well, being absolutely certain, I don't think we disagree conceptually here, just words. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/15/2010 19:19:45 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2010 : 00:16:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Dude
Hume's analysis of inductive logic aside, certainty is not a binary proposition. There are differing degrees. The word to describe it is "probability". |
I was taking the word "certainty" to mean, well, being absolutely certain, I don't think we disagree conceptually here, just words.
|
I'm not absolutely certain of anything.
I do, however, disagree with Hume and think that our perceptions are sufficient grounds for strong deductive logic.
If the universe is all some imaginary internalized dream of mine then why is it that the Swedish women's nude volleyball team doesn't live at my house? There is a rather large list of things that would be different if this whole deal was just my imagination.
There are so many things in our lives that I don't understand, yet for every piece of technology I don't comprehend there is at least one person in the world who does understand it. That is some remarkable consistency for an entirely internalized world, you'd think that there would be a few things running around that had no expert attached.
I could go on, and on.... and on here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2010 : 14:10:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If the universe is all some imaginary internalized dream of mine then why is it that the Swedish women's nude volleyball team doesn't live at my house? There is a rather large list of things that would be different if this whole deal was just my imagination. |
Why is idea that it is imagination in any way related to any of these things? Imagination does not have to be positive or even voluntary.
I don't think doubting perception means it must be imagination either, it could be the case that all humans perceive a very real world roughly the same idiosyncratic way by virtue of the way our bodies and minds work.
| There are so many things in our lives that I don't understand, yet for every piece of technology I don't comprehend there is at least one person in the world who does understand it. That is some remarkable consistency for an entirely internalized world, you'd think that there would be a few things running around that had no expert attached. |
This sounds an awfully lot like the argument from design for a god: showing that everything seems to work well together and that we perceive consistency, and drawing conclusions about the universe from this. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/16/2010 14:11:33 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2010 : 14:15:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I do, however, disagree with Hume and think that our perceptions are sufficient grounds for strong deductive logic. |
I agree it's the best we can do, but we must be aware that our deductions may be in error, though I really don't like the word deduction here. This is the very spirit of science as far as I'm concerned. I'm not trying to paint science or empiricism in the ignorant way many creationists do, it only works because we allow new information to overturn our previous thoughts, albeit sometimes with resistance. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/16/2010 14:17:03 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2010 : 11:13:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Dude
If the universe is all some imaginary internalized dream of mine then why is it that the Swedish women's nude volleyball team doesn't live at my house? There is a rather large list of things that would be different if this whole deal was just my imagination. |
Why is idea that it is imagination in any way related to any of these things? Imagination does not have to be positive or even voluntary.
I don't think doubting perception means it must be imagination either, it could be the case that all humans perceive a very real world roughly the same idiosyncratic way by virtue of the way our bodies and minds work.
| There are so many things in our lives that I don't understand, yet for every piece of technology I don't comprehend there is at least one person in the world who does understand it. That is some remarkable consistency for an entirely internalized world, you'd think that there would be a few things running around that had no expert attached. |
This sounds an awfully lot like the argument from design for a god: showing that everything seems to work well together and that we perceive consistency, and drawing conclusions about the universe from this.
|
We were talking about certainty, and you mentioned Hume. Hume, famously, takes issue with human perception and induction (broadly, I don't think anyone has actually given a reasonable counter to his argument yet, and I basically agree with him).
As an extension of those arguments, when we talk about proof and certainty, we invariably come back to not being able to prove external reality exists. I disagree in that I think our perceptions can make a strong case for external reality being a real thing, some of the reasons I listed above. As an extension of that, I think we can obtain high levels of certainty about specific things. The more generally or broadly we speak on a topic, the less certain we can be about our predictions/conclusions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A fundamental difference
