tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post9132965424432865717..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: A defense of the First and Second WaysVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger243125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34898712067112753222012-05-01T07:10:03.477-07:002012-05-01T07:10:03.477-07:00@grod: You said you'd let me get the last word...@grod: You said you'd let me get the last word, so here it is. I haven't responded to all those points because I understand, and, to a large extent, AGREE with them. I was trying to make a different point - and clearly failed. So let me just say this: you wrote that "all human knowledge starts with sense experience." Our notions of change and causality are based on this experience. The findings of modern physics are part of that experience. And those findings suggest that some older views of causation are simply wrong. <br /><br />If you want to understand how a theory can have uncaused events and still be a scientific theory, I suggest you learn more about quantum mechanics.<br /><br />Finally, I sincerely want to thank you for the discussion. It's been very interesting and helpful to me.<br /><br />@William: What I was trying to say was that IF the AT metaphysics is correct, THEN we should expect to find violations of QM. <br /><br />Personally, I doubt that we'll ever find (that kind of*) violation of QM. Which would imply (but of course not prove) that AT metaphysics is wrong.<br /><br />By "complete theory" I meant "complete within the scope of the things we use it for." I don't expect any of our current theories will survive unchanged for ever: we will eventually reach realms where they are no longer accurate. But I expect certain features of QM, like indeterminacy, will continue to be features of whatever replaces the current theories.Robert Oerterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708981993708509662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82103664512405456422012-04-30T19:43:04.528-07:002012-04-30T19:43:04.528-07:00": if there really is reason to think that su...": if there really is reason to think that such variables MUST exist, then QM CANNOT be a complete theory.<br />"<br /><br />What reason do we have to think that _any_ scientific field of reasonable scope has a complete theory? <br /><br />Or are you suggesting that QM theory is inconsistent with the data in some way?Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53020885009443431432012-04-30T16:10:22.582-07:002012-04-30T16:10:22.582-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36390886425367221942012-04-30T15:36:08.120-07:002012-04-30T15:36:08.120-07:00@Robert Oerter:
"And I don't see any way...@Robert Oerter:<br /><br />"And I don't see any way that this division into parts can be stopped until you get all the way down to fundamental particles."<br /><br />If you want to make an argument, do it -- what you or I fail to see is of little import. At what level the buck stops is a matter of contention even among essentialist philosophers, but in general Thomists will strenuously object to a reduction of explanations down to the level of particle physics for various reasons I will not expand upon (although I speak in terms of explanations, this is not an epistemological matter but an ontological one).<br /><br />"Might I respectfully suggest that modern physicists might know a bit more than Aquinas about fundamental particles and what causes changes in them?"<br /><br />Of course particle physicists know more about particle physics than Aquinas, who suggested otherwise? What you have to show is that this is somehow relevant to Aquinas' arguments, but as repeated numerous times by me and other people, it is not and can never be, at least not on the basis of input from physics alone.<br /><br />"I also want to respond to accusation of argument from ignorance that you keep repeating."<br /><br />Squeezed out, that is what the remaining of your post amounts to.<br /><br />I have already told you that you are saddling yourself to a specific interpretation of QM and importing your own (unconsciously held?) brand of metaphysics to interpret it; that the "problems" you mention can be explained in a number of different ways; that uncaused events is not the same thing as indeterminacy; that positing uncaused events is embracing irrationality and spells the death of science; that to say that this or that undermines causality, you have to define what causality writ large means in the first place, a question about which physics is mute; that to jump from an epistemic gap to an ontological one, physics alone cannot help you; that you systematically conflate the metaphysical with the physical theory levels of explanation (no, it is not primarily a question about hidden variables), etc. and etc. and etc. Nothing has sunk in, you have not responded to a single objection or challenge and limit yourself to repeat the "we have not founded so it must not be there" mantra, when the "not founded" is itself proclaimed on the basis of what one set out to find in the first place, a typical case of confusing the map for the territory.<br /><br />You may have the last word in this discussion; I already said everything I wanted to say on the subject and frankly, I am out of patience.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82820983475436746622012-04-30T08:37:51.475-07:002012-04-30T08:37:51.475-07:00I also want to respond to accusation of argument f...I also want to respond to accusation of argument from ignorance that you keep repeating. <br /><br />Quantum mechanics has been around for almost a hundred years. Our current understanding of QM suggests that, when you know a certain amount about a given system, you have reached the limit of what is possible to know about that system. In the case of the electron transition, if we know the state of the electron and the strength of its coupling to the electromagnetic field, then it's physically impossible to obtain more information that would allow us to know WHEN the transition to the lower energy state will occur. (We can ONLY predict its probability of occurring in a given time.)<br /><br />Now, you will say that this is just one interpretation, and that it's possible that there are some "hidden variables" that would give us that information, which we simply haven't identified yet. Well, as you probably know, such hidden variables have been proposed, and searched for, without success. <br /><br />I claim that this is not just an argument from ignorance, for the following reason. If such variables existed, then they would have to have some sort of physical effect. Because, if they had no physical effect, then they could not reasonably be considered to have real, physical existence.<br /><br />If they have any physical effect at all, then that effect can be used to filter some portion of the cases from the others. And if those variables give information over and above what QM gives about the system, then such a filtering would violate QM. So, we can look for these variables by looking for violations of QM.<br /><br />We have been looking for violations of QM for a long time, without success. This doesn’t prove that no such variables exist, of course, but it does give us strong reason to doubt their existence. So this is not (at least not entirely) an argument from ignorance.<br /><br />But if there is a real reason to believe in their existence on other grounds, like your metaphysical grounds, that changes everything. So that’s why I’m so interested in this discussion: if there really is reason to think that such variables MUST exist, then QM CANNOT be a complete theory.Robert Oerterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708981993708509662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1164209873118434452012-04-30T07:12:01.817-07:002012-04-30T07:12:01.817-07:00grod, thanks for the link. Augros goes for the &qu...grod, thanks for the link. Augros goes for the "parts" response, as I anticipated. And I don't see any way that this division into parts can be stopped until you get all the way down to fundamental particles.<br /><br />Might I respectfully suggest that modern physicists might know a bit more than Aquinas about fundamental particles and what causes changes in them?Robert Oerterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708981993708509662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83174181710006239052012-04-29T06:08:00.182-07:002012-04-29T06:08:00.182-07:00@Robert Oerter:
"If you go this route, thoug...@Robert Oerter:<br /><br />"If you go this route, though, you are saying that "Whatever is changed is changed by another" is not a general principle, but only applies to parts of things. And that means it doesn't apply to squirrels or people, as Feser would have it do. Further, there doesn't seem to be any stopping point to the division into parts, unless you go all the way down to the particle level."<br /><br />Yes, it is a general principle and yes it applies to squirrels, people, etc. You think Aristotle never observed an animal moving? That he never thought about self-movers? You yourself provide the answer, Prof. Feser provides the answer. In case that is not enough, see,<br /><br />http://www.aristotle-aquinas.org/peripatetikos-6/FirstWayP.pdf<br /><br />and jump to objection 4.<br /><br />"And the particle level is precisely where we have the least reason to believe that "Whatever is changed is changed by another.""<br /><br />Ah yes, your argument from ignorance. So devastating that nobody here has managed to scrounge a response to it yet.<br /><br />@William:<br /><br />"We do need to distinguish Aquinas, who would no doubt be flexible about his physics springboard, from his fanbois, who have fossilized his writing into a non-falsifiable semantics here"<br /><br />There is a typo in there, "fanbois" should be "fanboys". If you are going to hurl invectives, at least have the decency to spell them correctly.<br /><br />"Non-falsifiable semantics"? You really cannot clear your head of your scientism, can you? Is the theorem that every closed subspace of a Hilbert space is norm-1 complemented falsifiable? Is the functional calculus for normal operators falsifiable? Is the spectral theorem for self-adjoint operators falsifiable? Is the disintegration theorem for type I Von-Neumann algebras falsifiable? All these results, and many many others, are needed for formulating QM -- QM *presupposes* them, none is falsifiable nor is there any empirical data that could in principle falsify them. So why don't you go and heckle mathematicians? I am sure they are just dying to hear your opinions on their subject matter.<br /><br />The previous two paragraphs to the quoted one, start with "I think". Yes, you "think". Arguments? None. Nothing to see here, time to move on.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28890114738749515702012-04-28T22:03:42.221-07:002012-04-28T22:03:42.221-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39012211893758068562012-04-28T20:56:12.767-07:002012-04-28T20:56:12.767-07:00I think that Aquinas was connecting his metaphysic...I think that Aquinas was connecting his metaphysical argument to Aritotle's physics here,and that means the premise is outdated. No doubt Aquinas would have used a different way to connect his metaphysics to physics if he were writing today. <br /><br />I think, for example, that the principles of QM itself lack a causal explanation from within QM. <br /><br />We do need to distinguish Aquinas, who would no doubt be flexible about his physics springboard, from his fanbois, who have fossilized his writing into a non-falsifiable semantics here :)Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57705749021500621962012-04-28T18:03:29.772-07:002012-04-28T18:03:29.772-07:00http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012...http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/04/new-study-second-stage-thinking-erodes-religious-belief/BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4984961554138001902012-04-28T06:58:57.095-07:002012-04-28T06:58:57.095-07:00Rank,
If you do not think randomness is possible,...Rank,<br /><br />If you do not think randomness is possible, then what is the point?<br /><br />Robert,<br /><br />Here is how these clowns will counter your examples: there has to be something external causing these changes.<br /><br />And how do they know this? Because Thomas Aquinas says so.<br /><br />They have already admitted that empirical examples cannot even in principle change their minds.BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19547736846122895152012-04-28T01:17:55.839-07:002012-04-28T01:17:55.839-07:00Now, you might object that the hands on the clock ...Now, you might object that the hands on the clock are being changed by something else, namely the clock motor. And the motor is being changed by something else, namely electricity from the battery. And for the rod, one section of the rod is being changed by the neighboring section.<br /><br />If you go this route, though, you are saying that "Whatever is changed is changed by another" is not a general principle, but only applies to parts of things. And that means it doesn't apply to squirrels or people, as Feser would have it do. Further, there doesn't seem to be any stopping point to the division into parts, unless you go all the way down to the particle level. <br /><br />And the particle level is precisely where we have the least reason to believe that "Whatever is changed is changed by another."Robert Oerterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708981993708509662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-313042234338778182012-04-28T01:10:31.723-07:002012-04-28T01:10:31.723-07:00Sorry to drop out of the discussion, things got bu...Sorry to drop out of the discussion, things got busy. If I may jump back in with yet another demonstration of my ignorance (and if anyone is still following this thread):<br /><br />The more I think about "Whatever is changed is changed by another," the less it seems to be true. <br /><br />Consider an iron bar: among its potentialities are to be hot or cold. Suppose it is hot at one end and cold at the other. It will change (heat will even out), but not because of anything external. <br /><br />Or think of a clock. Among its potentialities are the different positions of its hands. Right now, the hands have some actual position. But when the hands change to a new position, it is not because of anything external.<br /><br />You could multiply these examples to infinity: many things change because of internal, not external, factors.Robert Oerterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708981993708509662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9426355012136237752012-04-25T13:27:48.214-07:002012-04-25T13:27:48.214-07:00BI,
The term "fair coin" is not relevan...BI,<br /><br />The term "fair coin" is not relevant to my criticism of your position. Even if I (as you say) am mistaken about what it means, it doesn't change the fact that probability and the LLN can't be used to measure truly random, non-deterministic events. You have yet to confront this point. Again: either the First Way and probability theory stand together with regard to QM, or they fall together. Either way, your original claim can't be true.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31264802141741905052012-04-25T09:33:03.187-07:002012-04-25T09:33:03.187-07:00I might also add BI don't know what the philos...I might also add BI don't know what the philosophical modeling of physical phenomena is as well.<br /><br />He's a teenager without a higher education.<br /><br />There I'm done.<br /><br />PWND!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27889711965941051932012-04-25T09:31:41.489-07:002012-04-25T09:31:41.489-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20663007827263713202012-04-25T09:29:18.147-07:002012-04-25T09:29:18.147-07:00I might add BI hasn't heard of the Philosophy ...I might add BI hasn't heard of the <b>Philosophy of Nature</b> either nor would he know any actual <b>Atheist Philosophy</b>k if it bit him on the arse. <br /><br />Unless it's found in THE GOD DELUSION or written by some Atheist Scientist who is not a philosopher then BI doesn't know it.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62383283794780748522012-04-25T09:25:46.262-07:002012-04-25T09:25:46.262-07:00I know I know I said we should ignore the troll BI...I know I know I said we should ignore the troll BI but I couldn't resist.<br /><br />>In all of these idiotic arguments, you guys claim they are metaphysical, and then proceed to start talking about physics. When folks who actually know something about physics point out that you have the physics all wrong, you then cowardly start whining that you are talking metaphysics not physics.<br /><br />I reply: As we can see genius here has never heard of the <b>Philosophy of Physics</b> nor I think the <b>Philosophy of Science</b> in general.<br /><br />So used to arguing with YEC fundies and ID advocates he can't do anything more advanced then that.<br /><br />Useless!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19911548242825221352012-04-25T09:18:51.872-07:002012-04-25T09:18:51.872-07:00Is BI going to acknowledge he's confusing rank...Is BI going to acknowledge he's confusing rank sophist with grodrigues?<br /><br />I doubt it.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24153470362620200822012-04-25T08:11:49.033-07:002012-04-25T08:11:49.033-07:00@BeingItself:
"You have already acknowledged...@BeingItself:<br /><br />"You have already acknowledged, to your credit, that you goofed in your initial criticisms."<br /><br />My two goofing ups on an elementary point of mathematics are completely irrelevant for my criticisms (what can I say, to quote a Tom Waits song "we all have those bad days when we can't hit for shit"), for they had to do with a question of yours about the tossing of fair coins. The criticisms stand as they always stood: unchallenged, unrefuted, and not even understood as amply evidenced by your recent posts.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36312676496852207532012-04-25T08:10:02.258-07:002012-04-25T08:10:02.258-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-92054170015551865722012-04-25T06:14:23.458-07:002012-04-25T06:14:23.458-07:00See RS
>You have already acknowledged, to your...See RS<br /><br />>You have already acknowledged, to your credit, that you goofed in your initial criticisms.<br /><br /><br />BI it seems can't tell the difference between you & grodrigues.<br /><br />What a f***ing idiot. He reads a well as I spell.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61196866114533780152012-04-25T05:56:26.090-07:002012-04-25T05:56:26.090-07:00"You have not answered me. That article has n..."You have not answered me. That article has nothing to do with the topic at hand."<br /><br />Yes I have, and yes it does. You were using a common sense understanding of a coin toss in order to criticize my example as being deterministic. I specifically used the term "fair coin" for its specific meaning within probability theory.<br /><br />You have already acknowledged, to your credit, that you goofed in your initial criticisms. Now you have goofed again.<br /><br />If you do not believe random events are possible in this universe, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45711535968399236892012-04-25T05:52:12.248-07:002012-04-25T05:52:12.248-07:00@RS
Just ignore BI he is a brain dead Gnu & a...@RS<br /><br />Just ignore BI he is a brain dead Gnu & a troll. He is dumber than Paps on a good day.<br /><br />He hasn't even tried to make an argument nor has he answered a single question put to him. He hasn't read any of the relevant material. <br /><br /> I'll say this for William. I don't buy his counter arguments & or his scientism but at least he has tried to make an argument and interact with the rest of us in good faith. He is trying to found his Atheism or skepticism in reason.<br /><br />BI is just one of those little boys who prayed for a Pony didn't get it & is now an "atheist".<br /><br />Pathetic.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32893537268988106412012-04-24T17:10:54.428-07:002012-04-24T17:10:54.428-07:00BI,
You have not answered me. That article has no...BI,<br /><br />You have not answered me. That article has nothing to do with the topic at hand. <br /><br />Probability theory is based on the idea that events will occur within a range of possibilities. As a result, it is often used to measure chaotic things, such as the weather. If something can be understood according to probability theory and the LLN, then it isn't truly random. As the article before said, the LLN ignores "Black Swan" events. In what way could something <i>not</i> composed entirely of Black Swan events be considered "truly random"? <br /><br />So, if commonsense reality is just a physical representation of the LLN, then quantum events are not truly random and the First Way stands. Even if QM events cannot be predicted by any current system, the very fact that they occur within a range of possibilities guarantees that they are not "true randomness". And yet, "true randomness" is the only kind that could be used to dismiss the First Way, since all other types are ultimately deterministic.<br /><br />You've unconsciously equivocated between two definitions of "random". It's the same sort of problem that underlies recent treatises on nothingness, such as A Universe from Nothing. <br /><br />Also, you ask what could convince me that true randomness is possible? Perhaps if I opened the door one day and saw the world and myself dissolving, with paradoxical space-time events occurring everywhere. And even then, I might possibly think, before my brain vanished, that it was some kind of universal collapse as predicted in certain cosmological theories--or perhaps an end-of-the-world event predicted in some religious text.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.com