tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8148140675405674732..comments2024-03-28T11:15:16.747-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Steve Lovell's analysis of the AFRVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54194731083910185642013-12-12T17:09:36.208-07:002013-12-12T17:09:36.208-07:00"I quoted wiki sources on it."
You stil..."I quoted wiki sources on it."<br /><br />You still don't have a clue what it is.<br /><br />"I'm not diverting, I'm defending."<br /><br />Put your money where your big mouth is. Go ahead and present your defense. (HINT: is has nothing to do with what I believe.)<br /><br />"Plenty of evidence supports the non-physicalist views."<br /><br />But not any empirical evidence. Just your lame arguments. Go ahead - prove me wrong.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7863113650804126342013-12-12T16:20:20.551-07:002013-12-12T16:20:20.551-07:00Once again I say, you don't have a clue. You h...<i>Once again I say, you don't have a clue. You have no idea what quantum tunneling is. </i><br /><br />Buddy, I quoted wiki sources on it. It is exactly what I say it is. Not my fault you fumbled here.<br /><br /><i>And now it's time to face tour own dilemma. Since you insisted, please feel free to provide your defense of the AFR. ... Go right ahead. ... Any time. ... Whenever you're ready.</i><br /><br />I'm not diverting, I'm defending. You won't answer my question because you know it skunks you - and that skunking plays a role in my AFR defense.<br /><br />Run, little boy. Run away.<br /><br /><i>But even in the face of that challenge, empirical evidence weight heavily in favor of the physicalist view, while no evidence at all supports a dualist view.</i><br /><br />Plenty of evidence supports the non-physicalist views. And the fact that 'physical' has had to undergo a change in definition time and time again indicates that relying on 'The Physical!' means nothing. Hence, Hempel's Dilemma.<br /><br />You are always a joy to school, Skep. Part of the reason? We've been at this so many times, you've been skunked so often, that at this point there is a voice in your head. 'Maybe Crude is right, and I am wrong.' My Christmas gift to you. And I give it every year. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57734512979298305252013-12-11T11:02:50.724-07:002013-12-11T11:02:50.724-07:00A note on Hempel's dilemma.
"The 'id...A note on Hempel's dilemma.<br /><br />"The 'ideal' physics may even come to define what we think of as mental as part of the physical world. In effect, physicalism by this second account becomes the circular claim that all phenomena are explicable in terms of physics because physics properly defined is whatever explains all phenomena." - Wikipedia<br /><br />The truth of the matter is that all phenomena that exist in the physical world are independent of any any human conceptions or formulation of 'natural law'. physics doesn't define reality. Rather, it attempts to describe reality. The current state of scientific knowledge may be incomplete, or even wrong in some cases. It does not dictate what reality is. In the future, we will presumable have a better understanding of things, but whatever that understanding is, it still doesn't determine in any way what occurs in nature.<br /><br />We can have a physicalist theory that says all phenomena are physical phenomena, subject to laws of nature. It then becomes the physicalist's challenge to discover what those laws of nature are. Of course, if we observe something that isn't accounted for by our current formulation of those laws, we must find new patterns of regularity in behavior, and adjust our formulation of the laws.<br /><br />On the other hand, the basic premise of physicalism should be subject to falsification. if it turns out that there is some observable phenomenon that defies any attempt to describe it in terms of the predictability of a natural law, then the physicalist should seriously consider whether his theory is valid. As it happens, there have never been any such observable phenomena that would pose a significant problem for upholding a physicalist view. There are challenges - particularly the view of some that mental phenomena are not physical. But even in the face of that challenge, empirical evidence weight heavily in favor of the physicalist view, while no evidence at all supports a dualist view. At this point, physicalists are not worried.<br /><br />There is no circular definition, no dilemma for physicalists, just uninformed or intellectually dishonest ways of looking at it.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43332022028091375332013-12-10T00:02:51.473-07:002013-12-10T00:02:51.473-07:00"You have an out: quantum tunneling event.&qu..."You have an out: quantum tunneling event."<br /><br />Once again I say, you don't have a clue. You have no idea what quantum tunneling is. <br /><br />And now it's time to face tour own dilemma. Since you insisted, please feel free to provide your defense of the AFR. ... Go right ahead. ... Any time. ... Whenever you're ready.<br /><br />Oh, that's right. You don't have one. So you're going to try to divert. Good luck with that.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6717438241615331842013-12-09T19:29:20.307-07:002013-12-09T19:29:20.307-07:00Yes, it is. I repeat: "The baseball NEVER tak...<i>Yes, it is. I repeat: "The baseball NEVER takes off and flies into the sky, or makes a sudden sharp turn in mid-air. To deny that these physical laws always apply is wishful thinking on your part."</i><br /><br />Ho ho, Skep. Repeat yourself another time too:<br /><br /><i>I didn't say it was absolutely impossible. I was talking about things at the scale that is normally observable by ordinary people.</i><br /><br />So much for 'NEVER'. So much for 'these laws ALWAYS apply'. It turns out you are entirely open to baseballs taking radically different paths - even passing through brick walls - and this being naturally.<br /><br />But if they didn't apply? You have an out: quantum tunneling event. Or - and this is important - you could simply say, 'Unknown phenomena, purely natural, we just have to wait and see.' After all, it's not as if it's impossible for this to happen, right? And if the event did happen - if it turns out the behavior you described did not ALWAYS take place, if it failed to NEVER deviate - then you have an alternative: quantum tunneling. Or any other fluke or unknown you wish to offer.<br /><br />This is why people were telling you to consider, among other things, Hempel's Dilemma. Maybe if you did, you'd realize the problem you were bringing upon yourself.<br /><br />Now that we've shown you know jack-all about how to evaluate nature for signs of "the supernatural" or the like, let's move on to the AFR. Here's a question that I already know your answer to.<br /><br />Are thoughts and intentions intrinsic, or derived, in brains and other matter?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66677575542720248182013-12-09T15:56:19.483-07:002013-12-09T15:56:19.483-07:00"Oh, this is rich"
Yes, it is. I repea..."Oh, this is rich"<br /><br />Yes, it is. I repeat: "The baseball NEVER takes off and flies into the sky, or makes a sudden sharp turn in mid-air. To deny that these physical laws always apply is wishful thinking on your part."<br /><br />"But, oops... it turns out that they don't always apply." Yes, they do.<br /><br />You seem to have it in your mind that because subatomic particles can exhibit quantum tunneling, anything goes. But it doesn't. It's obvious that you have no idea what quantum tunneling is. Give it up.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81935024422760708252013-12-09T14:10:02.341-07:002013-12-09T14:10:02.341-07:00No it is behavior that has always existed that had...<i>No it is behavior that has always existed that had been unobserved until the 20th century.</i><br /><br />First - how do you know that? Is that something science teaches you? Or is it something you just assume? Indeed, something you need to philosophically assume to continue your scientific project?<br /><br />Second - so regular supernatural behavior that has been taking place for a long time is completely undetectable by your standard. True?<br /><br /><i>Only if the newly observed behavior proves to be consistent - that is, it always behaves that way - can we say that is a case of #1.</i><br /><br />Okay. So what you're asking for are one-time anomalies, correct?<br /><br /><i>I didn't say it was absolutely impossible.</i><br /><br />"The baseball NEVER takes off and flies into the sky, or makes a sudden sharp turn in mid-air. To deny that these physical laws always apply is wishful thinking on your part."<br /><br />No, Skep - you were quite clear. NEVER. To deny these ALWAYS apply is wishful thinking.<br /><br />But, oops... it turns out that they don't always apply.<br /><br /><i>If you can cite a single case of a whole baseball experiencing a quantum tunneling event, I will certainly retract my statement.</i><br /><br />Oh, this is rich. So... if the baseball took off and flew into the sky, or made a sudden sharp turn in mid-air... it would be a quantum tunneling event, right? Are quantum tunneling events supernatural?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21131899890117902752013-12-09T11:20:43.229-07:002013-12-09T11:20:43.229-07:00Let's dispense with crude's shallow readin...Let's dispense with crude's shallow reading of my statements:<br /><br />"The behavior of matter at the quantum scale was clearly a case of 2". No it is behavior that has always existed that had been unobserved until the 20th century.<br /><br />"But in that case, you can insist that every given situation you come across is 1." Again, no. Only if the newly observed behavior proves to be consistent - that is, it always behaves that way - can we say that is a case of #1.<br /><br />"So much for 'works every time'." I didn't say it was absolutely impossible. I was talking about things at the scale that is normally observable by ordinary people. If you can cite a single case of a whole baseball experiencing a quantum tunneling event, I will certainly retract my statement.<br /><br />Now please return to the other thread and show us that you're not all bark and no bite.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40733937269841117432013-12-08T15:02:36.256-07:002013-12-08T15:02:36.256-07:00Oh, and also.
If I throw a baseball, I can descri...Oh, and also.<br /><br /><i>If I throw a baseball, I can describe its motion using Newton's laws. And you know what else? It works every time. The baseball NEVER takes off and flies into the sky, or makes a sudden sharp turn in mid-air. To deny that these physical laws always apply is wishful thinking on your part.</i><br /><br />Let's take a look at what the wikipedia has to say about the physics of balls:<br /><br /><i>Quantum tunnelling falls under the domain of quantum mechanics: the study of what happens at the quantum scale. This process cannot be directly perceived, but much of its understanding is shaped by the macroscopic world, which classical mechanics cannot adequately explain. To understand the phenomenon, particles attempting to travel between potential barriers can be compared to a ball trying to roll over a hill; quantum mechanics and classical mechanics differ in their treatment of this scenario. Classical mechanics predicts that particles that do not have enough energy to classically surmount a barrier will not be able to reach the other side. Thus, a ball without sufficient energy to surmount the hill would roll back down. Or, lacking the energy to penetrate a wall, it would bounce back (reflection) or in the extreme case, bury itself inside the wall (absorption). In quantum mechanics, these particles can, with a very small probability, tunnel to the other side, thus crossing the barrier. Here, the ball could, in a sense, borrow energy from its surroundings to tunnel through the wall or roll over the hill, paying it back by making the reflected electrons more energetic than they otherwise would have been.[9]</i><br /><br />'These laws' include utterly unthinkable things that weren't possible with just Newton's Laws. Now, they're estimated to be incredibly unlikely - but they are quite possible by modern physics. So much for 'works every time'.<br /><br />Of course, you can say that at least you can generally describe what's going on with quantum physics calculations - probablistic, perhaps. And maybe refine that in turn. But then, you're just letting another problem rear its head.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60662381941514293212013-12-08T14:30:23.851-07:002013-12-08T14:30:23.851-07:001: We observe for the first time what we were not ...<i>1: We observe for the first time what we were not able to before. This is not a violation at all. It is merely our own incomplete understanding of the behavior of things, and necessitates modifying our formulation of the law. This behavior has always existed, but we didn't have the ability to observe it.<br /><br />2: We observe something that is DIFFERENT from what we have always observed. It appears to be something supernatural. This would be a violation of natural law if it ever happened, but it NEVER does.</i><br /><br />The amazing thing is that you think this clarifies anything.<br /><br />First, your end claim of 2 is incorrect. We have all manner of claimed observations of things that 'violate natural law'.<br /><br />But that's not the real problem here. The behavior of matter at the quantum scale was clearly a case of 2: we observed that matter was behaving in ways that was entirely different from how it had always been observed to do so. Sometimes a particle, sometimes a wave, among other things. You've even made the erroneous claim in the past that matter 'pops into existence without a cause', if I recall correctly. Forget that it's erroneous, and take it at face value: is that at all close to what we've 'always observed'? So 2 has been met by your own standards.<br /><br />Now let's say you turn around and go 'Oh, but that was the first time we ever saw such and such. It's not a case of 2 - it's a case of 1!' Okay. But in that case, you can insist that every given situation you come across is 1. And remember: it doesn't matter if 1 violates the 'known laws of physics', because such 'violations' have happened repeatedly in the past. We responded by updating and changing the laws.<br /><br />You can do this, in principle, with any given development. If it turns out that the thomists are correct and that there is something more than mere mechanistic matter at work in creatures and things, then you can say "Oh, new discovery, new theory. This is just a case of 1." You wouldn't even say that matter has something 'immaterial' to it - the definition of material could simply be expanded.<br /><br />Heck, you could even fit gods and God under 1 if you wanted. We merely had an incomplete understanding of things, that's all.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28209623773742261232013-12-05T09:27:19.288-07:002013-12-05T09:27:19.288-07:00"what do you mean when you're talking abo..."what do you mean when you're talking about "violations"?"<br /><br />This discussion has mentioned violations in two different senses:<br /><br />1: We observe for the first time what we were not able to before. This is not a violation at all. It is merely our own incomplete understanding of the behavior of things, and necessitates modifying our formulation of the law. This behavior has always existed, but we didn't have the ability to observe it.<br /><br />2: We observe something that is DIFFERENT from what we have always observed. It appears to be something supernatural. This would be a violation of natural law if it ever happened, but it NEVER does.<br /><br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42462961967648575192013-12-05T05:51:59.065-07:002013-12-05T05:51:59.065-07:00But now if the laws are merely descriptive, what d...But now if the laws are merely descriptive, what do you mean when you're talking about "violations"? It begins to sound as if the miraculous is defined out of existence in the manner of McKinnon's '"Miracle" and "Paradox"':<br /><br /><i>This contradiction may stand out more clearly if for 'natural law' we substitute the expression 'the actual course of events'. Miracle would then be defined as "an event involving the suspension of the actual course of events."</i><br /><br />McKinnon took this to show that the concept of the miraculous is incoherent. I take it to show that <i>his</i> concept of the miraculous is incoherent and as an indication that his understanding of laws of nature is wrong.<br /><br />If you're with McKinnon then I think William is making a good point.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81309171721899995492013-12-05T04:09:11.355-07:002013-12-05T04:09:11.355-07:00Steve,
You're right. 'Explain' was n...Steve,<br /><br />You're right. 'Explain' was not the best choice of words. I should have said 'describe' instead. Laws of nature don't tell us why things behave the way they do, but they give us a mathematical description of the behavior, which can be used to predict what will occur given a known set of initial conditions.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78900119795722128872013-12-05T02:04:05.199-07:002013-12-05T02:04:05.199-07:00Hi there,
Apologies for my absence. Work is very ...Hi there,<br /><br />Apologies for my absence. Work is very busy and I'm not getting much time for other stuff. We've rather left the main topic for the moment, but I think the discussion on laws of nature is interesting, and we've touched on it several times.<br /><br />Skep, I think you've been moving back and forth on what laws of nature are. On the one hand you've sometimes been saying that laws are just propositions recording the regular behaviour of nature. But now you're saying that the laws explain the way things are. One the face of things, these are two very different and incompatible views.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33389834824163339962013-12-04T16:08:21.652-07:002013-12-04T16:08:21.652-07:00William,
I guess I didn't make the point very...William,<br /><br />I guess I didn't make the point very well. You say: "If there was a species of moth that could turn invisible when disturbed in a magical way ... we'd just modify our known laws to reflect the known natural world once more". But if there were such a thing, we'd have known it all along, and science would have a theory about how it happens. We wouldn't have to "modify our known laws". They would have taken that into account from the start. What would be unnatural or magical is if suddenly we begin to observe something like that when it never happened before. Then we'd be scratching our heads and saying "that's a violation of the known laws of physics." What I've been trying to get across to you is that those things don't happen. The laws of physics explain the way things are, and the way things have always been. They don't explain supernatural phenomena because we never, ever see those things happen.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4975188291150970182013-12-04T12:48:40.204-07:002013-12-04T12:48:40.204-07:00skep:
The laws of nature as you describe them mer...skep:<br /><br />The laws of nature as you describe them merely reflect the order of the cosmos. If there was a species of moth that could turn invisible when disturbed in a magical way (by our world's current standards) just by somehow turning into dark matter for a half minute, then back, and this was predicable and reproducible, we'd just modify our known laws to reflect the known natural world once more, and you would still be right. <br /><br />Under your system, all that can exist (you specify that excludes God) is <i> by definition physical</i> and all that happens must <i>by definition</i> be in accordance to natural laws. It's all very tidy, and it makes absolutely no difference that should make a difference. <br /><br />Your view point is metaphysically tautological and thus ultimately meaningless, in that it makes no difference to any scientific activity I or anyone else might actually do. In that sense, it is very unscientific from the standpoint of trying to learn anything new about the world.<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9565798404115580452013-12-04T06:13:19.130-07:002013-12-04T06:13:19.130-07:00William,
You can create all the little 'philo...William,<br /><br />You can create all the little 'philosopher's boxes' you like to try to confine me in. I don't care about Hempel's dilemma. What I'm saying is the things do behave in accordance with laws of nature, whatever they may be, and that's true whether or not we have a complete understanding of them.<br /><br />We know enough about the laws of mechanics (mass, force, motion) at the level of our everyday experience to describe them perfectly adequately with Newton's laws. Yes, there are nuances - when we want to understand things that move close to the speed of light, or things that at the subatomic level, we need to have extensions to the laws or new laws to properly account for what we observe. And no doubt there will be additional modifications in the future. But I'd like to stress that even as we learn more and we sometimes find the need to modify our formulation of laws of nature, it never changes the observations we've made in the past. That's data that we still have to account for, and always will.<br /><br />If I throw a baseball, I can describe its motion using Newton's laws. And you know what else? It works every time. The baseball NEVER takes off and flies into the sky, or makes a sudden sharp turn in mid-air. To deny that these physical laws always apply is wishful thinking on your part.<br /><br />What about smallpox virus? There was never any violation of physical law. What we had was a lack of knowledge at that time about viruses.<br /><br />What about ether? That was nothing more than a postulation (one of many) that proved to be false as soon as we had the ability to make accurate measurements of the speed of light.<br /><br />These examples only serve to show that we don't have all the answers. But they do nothing show that things ever have or ever will violate laws of nature, once those laws are adequately understood.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51200416631240027402013-12-04T00:32:29.614-07:002013-12-04T00:32:29.614-07:00Consider the history of the smallpox virus. We kn...Consider the history of the smallpox virus. We knew that cowpox protected against smallpox before we know what a virus was or what lymphocytes were. The laws we had to judge the empirical data changed, the data (vaccination worked) did not.<br /><br />Consider the history of the luminiferous ether to carry light waves. It was dubious as an entity, experimentally speaking, well before we had any working theory to explain why.<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9684697298087925342013-12-04T00:21:25.092-07:002013-12-04T00:21:25.092-07:00skep: I think you show a lot of wishful thinking h...skep: I think you show a lot of wishful thinking here, or is it a kind of faith? If so, I respect your choice, though I disagree.<br /><br />Perhaps you need to ponder Hempel's dilemma a bit.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27409173145452689312013-12-03T21:33:38.072-07:002013-12-03T21:33:38.072-07:00"the laws changed, the data didn't."..."the laws changed, the data didn't."<br /><br />Sorry, that's incorrect. Our way of making observations has changed. The data we collect has changed over time as our methods improve, and of course we have to revise the physical laws as we see new aspects of physical behavior that were always there but not observable before. The more we are able to observe, the more we need to refine physical law. Newton's laws didn't take into account things that we can now observe. (And you should be aware that under ordinary humanly observable conditions, the equations of Einstein's relativity precisely match Newton's.) Given the observational capabilities we have at any time, the laws are never violated.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16207231935691122542013-12-03T19:49:53.301-07:002013-12-03T19:49:53.301-07:00Nah, it's a tautology you have going here. Re...Nah, it's a tautology you have going here. Relativity showed where Newton's laws were violated, and the laws changed, the data didn't.<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79100280753751933112013-12-03T19:39:56.152-07:002013-12-03T19:39:56.152-07:00William,
As I'm sure you are aware, physical ...William,<br /><br />As I'm sure you are aware, physical laws are simply our observation of the way things behave. The point about them is that things ALWAYS behave in accordance with these laws. If we should ever observe that something violates these laws, we would call it supernatural, but we NEVER see that.<br /><br />And that fact is compelling evidence for naturalism.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7958891838510090652013-12-03T18:00:41.058-07:002013-12-03T18:00:41.058-07:00skep:
physical laws? There is that catchall (exc...skep:<br /><br /><i>physical</i> laws? There is that catchall (except god of course) word again. Hmm.<br /><br />Are physical laws physical? Are they make of the quark-stuff too? <br /><br /><br />Or is it another tautology of your physical-ism, that they are they just merely the things that physical things do?<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70902958554838208322013-12-03T16:39:13.619-07:002013-12-03T16:39:13.619-07:00Well, if you believe in hylemorphic dualism, physi...Well, if you believe in hylemorphic dualism, physical objects have an immaterial component (or form) that gives them something not derived from pure physics. A human soul provides the intellect, but still depends on the physical operation of the brain, or something to that effect. I don't understand how something like that would work, but it's not a problem for be because I don't believe in it. But other than considerations like that, no - there's nothing a physical object could do that would not be physical. In other words, everything a physical object could do would conform and be constrained by physical laws.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84678452079399619782013-12-03T15:10:07.079-07:002013-12-03T15:10:07.079-07:00skep: So, anything that something that is made of ...skep: So, anything that something that is made of matter does is physical by your definition?<br /><br />Is there anything that a material object could conceivably do that in your schema would not be also physical simply by definition due to its origin?Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.com