tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7958669683373505925..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: A Twitter Exchange between Jeff Lowder and Peter Boghossian about my two posts Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1324010569323475782016-05-23T07:02:27.120-07:002016-05-23T07:02:27.120-07:00Laws of nature are mere descriptions... It makes n...Laws of nature are mere descriptions... It makes no sense to say that a thing operates in a certain sense "because of the law X"; on the contrary, we start talking about "law X" because of the regularity, order and patterns we observe. This leads us to teleology, obviously. There is an immanent teleology in the universe which cries out for some explanation.Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48894449522465541422016-05-23T00:21:34.278-07:002016-05-23T00:21:34.278-07:00"Which is just another way of saying that the..."Which is just another way of saying that there's a point at which a "why" question becomes meaningless, because that is the point at which no one has currently figure out a way to pose the question in a way that's tractable."<br /><br />On the contrary, I would say that it is at the point you would declare it to become meaningless that I would call it the most important question of all.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70151099485133399492016-05-22T19:55:11.663-07:002016-05-22T19:55:11.663-07:00"Your free throw percentage explains why you ..."Your free throw percentage explains why you missed your last shot"<br /><br />Science!SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80187462871441439992016-05-22T15:07:24.494-07:002016-05-22T15:07:24.494-07:00Chris: "Cal, I'm getting the sense that i...<b>Chris:</b> "<i>Cal, I'm getting the sense that it's not so much the problem of the immaterial interacting with the material, but with the kind and frequency of that interaction that is described in the bible? Right? Incidentally, I know a lot of spiritualit types who are staunch anti-materialists, yet are just as critical of the bible as you are because it so obviously "mythological" to them.</i>"<br /><br />Maybe you haven't heard -- all the *best* '<i>Science!</i>' fetishists have no problem with claims that "<i>so obviously "mythological"</i>" events have occurred: in fact, they assert that claims about all manner of "<i>so obviously "mythological"</i>" events are the height and epitome of '<i>Science!</i>'.<br /><br />In truth, it's only when some "<i>so obviously "mythological"</i>" event is advanced as supporting Christianity that '<i>Science!</i>' fetishists start having problems with it.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32651291339390340152016-05-22T14:57:09.241-07:002016-05-22T14:57:09.241-07:00some foolish (and intellectually dishonest) materi...<i>some foolish (and intellectually dishonest) materialist</i> "<i>Sigh. It's a lie to take a part of my prior explanation about a kind of why answer that science can give (in response to Bob's claim that science cannot offer any why answers), and tie that part to your silly claim that in order to explain, the math of physics must cause </i>"<br /><br /><b>B.Prokop:</b>"<i>It absolutely must cause, in order to be an explanation. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a description.</i>"<br /><br />Perhaps ol' Cal is trying to re-introduce Aristotle's <i>four</i> classes of causation ... while still sticking to the materialistic pretense that only material causes are real, and explanatory.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77243868198320482032016-05-22T14:50:45.786-07:002016-05-22T14:50:45.786-07:00B.Prokop: "... but that really doesn't te...<b>B.Prokop:</b> "<i>... but that really doesn't tell us <b>why</b> things behave the way they do - it just tells us [<b>that</b> they do].</i>"<br /><br />FIFYIlíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75828101940395073702016-05-22T10:28:25.506-07:002016-05-22T10:28:25.506-07:00Shameless self promotion here, but I've just f...Shameless self promotion here, but I've just finished going back over all the postings on my blog <a href="http://celestialpilgrimage.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Celestial Pilgrimage</a>, adding some pretty cool images to most of them. If I do say so myself, it's worth a look-see - even if you've already been there.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78396518063904603262016-05-22T09:30:30.733-07:002016-05-22T09:30:30.733-07:00Prokop: "[The math of physics] absolutely mus...Prokop: "[The math of physics] absolutely must cause, in order to be an explanation. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a description."<br /><br />This would make you a kind of Platonist. And I think that Platonists are pretty silly, don't you? <br /><br />The math of physics is a kind of description, but that math alone is not the scientific explanation. As I tried to explain earlier, the scientific explanation includes a number of other determinations that, alongside the descriptive math, provide some answers about why events occur. <br /><br />Prokop: "But I do know that the Medievalists attributed the actions of inanimate objects (such as a falling rock) to Love. And as I said earlier, all we've done nowadays is replace Love with Law, but that really doesn't tell us why things behave the way they do - it just tells us how."<br /><br />Which is just another way of saying that there's a point at which a "why" question becomes meaningless, because that is the point at which no one has currently figure out a way to pose the question in a way that's tractable. Every explanation (event those that end with god!) can be subject to another "why" question. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26527592196493348972016-05-22T04:01:04.730-07:002016-05-22T04:01:04.730-07:00William,
I guess we define "cause" diff...William,<br /><br />I guess we define "cause" differently. To me, a "cause" is what makes an object behave as it does, not just a description of how it behaves. Even in your Greek example, their law simply states that things fall toward the center of the Earth, but does not explain the "why" of such action. I'll confess that I'm not up on my Aristotle enough to know how they did explain it. But I do know that the Medievalists attributed the actions of inanimate objects (such as a falling rock) to Love. And as I said earlier, all we've done nowadays is replace Love with Law, but that really doesn't tell us <i><b>why</b></i> things behave the way they do - it just tells us how.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26605244018134759312016-05-21T21:51:11.268-07:002016-05-21T21:51:11.268-07:00B. Prokop:
"It absolutely must cause, in or...B. Prokop:<br /><br /><br />"It absolutely must cause, in order to be an explanation. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a description."<br /><br />Not quite I think. For example, it was a law with the Greeks that things fell toward the center of the earth. That seemed causal, but if we stand on the Moon and drop something, it falls toward the center of the Moon, not the earth.<br /><br />So some laws are descriptive, not causal: they are descriptive of the behavior of things in certain circumstances, but are not the actual cause of that behavior, as seen in a different context.<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21307506942595312462016-05-21T19:40:08.029-07:002016-05-21T19:40:08.029-07:00"in order to explain, the math of physics mus..."<i>in order to explain, the math of physics must cause</i>"<br /><br />It absolutely <b>must</b> cause, in order to be an explanation. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a description.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31487205900482631592016-05-21T18:23:43.882-07:002016-05-21T18:23:43.882-07:00@Steve and Bob,
Steve: "If [the math of phy...@Steve and Bob, <br /><br />Steve: "If [the math of physics] doesn't cause the behavior, [the math of physics] doesn't explain why it behaves that way. But you said [the math of physics] does explain why."<br />Me: "Lie much?"<br /><br />Sigh. It's a lie to take a part of my prior explanation about a kind of why answer that science can give (in response to Bob's claim that science cannot offer any why answers), and tie that part to your silly claim that in order to explain, the math of physics must cause (?).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69781663512231869662016-05-21T14:21:23.214-07:002016-05-21T14:21:23.214-07:00Sorry, Steve. You beat me to it while I was typing...Sorry, Steve. You beat me to it while I was typing.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13044777906521508602016-05-21T14:20:28.941-07:002016-05-21T14:20:28.941-07:00SteveK: "If it doesn't cause the behavior...SteveK: "<i>If it doesn't cause the behavior, it doesn't explain why it behaves that way. But you said it does explain why.</i>"<br /><br />Cal: "<i>Lie much?</i>"<br /><br />Cal (earlier): "<i>We know that matter behaves in all kinds of predictable ways, <b>and the "why"</b> is basically because of the second law of thermodynamics.</i>" (emphasis added)<br /><br />Me: Yeah, I guess you do.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22340689384477159882016-05-21T14:13:10.718-07:002016-05-21T14:13:10.718-07:00"...and the "why" is basically beca..."...and the "why" is basically because of the second law of thermodynamic"<br />SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35005046682012404482016-05-21T13:01:48.178-07:002016-05-21T13:01:48.178-07:00SteveK: "If it doesn't cause the behavior...SteveK: "If it doesn't cause the behavior, it doesn't explain why it behaves that way. But you said it does explain why."<br /><br />Lie much? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55000049407024770612016-05-21T11:19:53.609-07:002016-05-21T11:19:53.609-07:00If it doesn't cause the behavior, it doesn'...If it doesn't cause the behavior, it doesn't explain why it behaves that way. But you said it does explain why. You might want to rethink one of your prior statements. SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19374850299683516482016-05-21T09:19:28.489-07:002016-05-21T09:19:28.489-07:00SteveK: "So we have matter and we have the se...SteveK: "So we have matter and we have the second law that explains why matter behaves like it does. The two are not the same. The second law is the reason why the predictable effect occurs. It's a cause."<br /><br />No. A physical law is a description. This is basic science stuff. Which is yet another example of a type of belief that runs alongside not understanding basic science.<br /><br />SteveK: "The second law cause is either physical, or it's not. Do you know which"<br /><br />I explained what the math of physics is above (it's not physical, and it doesn't "cause" anything physical to happen). <br /><br />You don't understand a very basic concept of scientific understanding. You should try to figure that out, first, before you start jumping ahead to thinking you have problems with it.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20545859788932276982016-05-21T08:33:24.285-07:002016-05-21T08:33:24.285-07:00Cal = "I haven't anyone here claim that l...Cal = "I haven't anyone here claim that laws are physical objects, so I'm not sure what talk you're referring to."<br /><br />Cal = "We know that matter behaves in all kinds of predictable ways, and the "why" is basically because of the second law of thermodynamics (among other, higher level why answers)."<br /><br />So we have matter and we have the second law that explains why matter behaves like it does. The two are not the same. The second law is the reason why the predictable effect occurs. It's a cause. <br /><br />Cal = "ALL of the times that we've discovered ANY CAUSE for an event, that cause has turned out to be physical"<br /><br />The second law cause is either physical, or it's not. Do you know which?SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25358149930123901552016-05-21T08:03:56.529-07:002016-05-21T08:03:56.529-07:00Prokop: "Punting to the "Laws of Nature&...Prokop: "Punting to the "Laws of Nature" to explain how matter and energy behave is ultimately fatal to materialism."<br /><br />Punting to the "Laws of the lawgiver" to explain how matter and energy behave is ultimately fatal to the theist.<br /><br />Prokop: "The problem is there is no mechanism to explain why an electron is attracted to a proton, rather than being repelled. And saying, "That's its nature" is no help."<br /><br />The problem is there is no mechanism to explain why an electron is attracted to a proton, rather than being repelled. And saying, "That's god's will" is no help.<br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />--------<br /><br />Prokop: "The first was explained to me by an astrophysicist in my astronomy club who was an expert in quantum mechanics. My mistake, he told me, was in thinking there was any "physical" reality to an electron at all."<br /><br />This "expert" should go tell all the other physicists that electrons have no physical reality at all. They'll all be so surprised at how they've all been wasting their time quantifying and describing its physical properties for the last century or more. <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41531750841414688392016-05-21T07:55:12.890-07:002016-05-21T07:55:12.890-07:00William: "Are differential equations physical...William: "Are differential equations physical?"<br /><br />Not how I understand the term "physical."<br /><br />William: "From an instrumentalist point of view, all this talk of laws as physical objects..."<br /><br />I haven't anyone here claim that laws are physical objects, so I'm not sure what talk you're referring to.<br /><br />William: "...seems naively realist about things that are not physical objects and which function mainly as as useful if not always accurate predictors of actual experience."<br /><br />I agree that physics (as expressed through math) is a useful tool. I think that this tool is derived from our experience with the physical world. In other words, I don't think that the underlying mathematics used in physics is actually physical thing that controls or directs or in some way constrains the physical world -- I think that the physical world exists, and that some math can be derived that describes it. That seems about as straightforward and minimal as I think we can get.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50609738118243459372016-05-21T07:01:57.597-07:002016-05-21T07:01:57.597-07:00Punting to the "Laws of Nature" to expla...Punting to the "Laws of Nature" to explain how matter and energy behave is ultimately fatal to materialism. The materialist is either forced upon a "just because" explanation<br /><br /><i>Child A: "Why do you like to play with trucks?"<br />Child B: "Because."</i><br /><br />or he needs actually explain why things act the way they do. Just saying, "Well, they do," ain't good enough.<br /><br />The problem is there is no <i>mechanism</i> to explain why an electron is attracted to a proton, rather than being repelled. And saying, "That's its nature" is no help. An electron has no parts. There is no place to store the information "Go toward that proton," within its structure.<br /><br />I have heard only two possible answers to this problem. The first was explained to me by an astrophysicist in my astronomy club who was an expert in quantum mechanics. My mistake, he told me, was in thinking there was any "physical" reality to an electron at all. All that existed at that rock-bottom, elementary level was information, which could thereby interrelate with other bits of information with ease. But all by itself, that destroys materialism right then and there.<br /><br />The second possible solution is Panpsychism - the idea that consciousness is universal, that even elementary particles are self aware. But that idea is even more anathema to a strict materialist.<br /><br />There appears to be no materialist answer to this question. All the solutions lead to the existence of something other than just matter and energy.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71483608164702026172016-05-20T23:34:15.203-07:002016-05-20T23:34:15.203-07:00Cal,
The second law of thermodynamics is generall...Cal,<br /><br />The second law of thermodynamics is generally expressed, by those who actually use it in measurement, as a differential equation (or the result of an integration of that equation in a specific case). <br /><br />Are differential equations physical? <br /><br />From an instrumentalist point of view, all this talk of laws as physical objects seems naively realist about things that are not physical objects and which function mainly as as useful if not always accurate predictors of actual experience.<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67527004722593525282016-05-20T21:04:15.059-07:002016-05-20T21:04:15.059-07:00SteveK: "If we haven't identified the phy...SteveK: "If we haven't identified the physical cause known as the second law, how does anyone know it's physical?"<br /><br />The second law of thermodynamics describes how a physical system behaves. There is no other way to describe a physical system other than by physical terms. <br /><br />SteveK: "If no other cause can disrupt the sustained orderly cause we know as the second law, it's immutable."<br /><br />What cause? We're talking about the describing the (observable and predictable) behavior of systems, made up of physical objects. <br /><br />SteveK: "How many physical things that exist in the universe are immutable?"<br /><br />I don't know.Do you? How do you know when a physical thing is immutable, or not?<br /><br />Or are you just talking out of your ass (again)?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5833365898782741522016-05-20T14:17:10.734-07:002016-05-20T14:17:10.734-07:00More...
If we haven't identified the physical...More...<br /><br />If we haven't identified the physical cause known as the second law, how does anyone know it's physical?<br />If no other cause can disrupt the sustained orderly cause we know as the second law, it's immutable. How many physical things that exist in the universe are immutable?SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.com