Logic
Steven R Thurston
A common defence for God is (Ahem, Brian) that God is beyond logic. Sorry,
this baffles me. What do you think logic is that something can be "beyond" it?
Till Then... thu...@en.ecn.purdue.edu
(Steve Thurston)
==============================================================================
Disclaimer: I can't claim to know what I'm talking about, so don't expect
anyone else to.
==============================================================================
Brian T. Coughlin
In article <910114190...@en.ecn.purdue.edu> thu...@ECN.PURDUE.EDU
(Steven R Thurston) writes, in response to my article:
>Here's a poser for the Xtian community on this group.
>A common defence for God is (Ahem, Brian) that God is beyond logic. Sorry,
>this baffles me. What do you think logic is that something can be "beyond" it?
Hi, Steve!
First of all, I was not using the assertion as a defense of God. I
was refuting the claim that God can be logically disproven. I will
just as readily trot out the same refutation to use against people
who claim that God can be logically PROVEN, so it would be inaccurate
to say that I was defending God. Rather, in this case, one could say
that I was defending skepticism.
As far as "something being beyond logic", I was being slightly
metaphorical; I meant to convey the image of something that is
incapable of being completely (absolutely) defined. Logic is merely
a systematic analysis of facts and assumptions used to establish
conclusions. One can easily "break out" of such a structure by
talking about contradictions; they can be logically expressed, but
have no logical existence, as such. Another case would be an infinite
a postriori reasoning process (like checking all real numbers to see
if one of them is EXACTLY equal to the millimeter-width of my thumb);
it's rather pointless, and certainly impossible. To be "beyond logic",
in this context, is to be beyond the possibility of being perfectly
(i.e. absolutely) defined by logic. A square can be defined absolutely,
within certain frameworks, in that every aspect of a square can be
accounted for. A human, on the other hand, cannot be absolutely defined,
as there are an unknown number of variables to account for.
In short, the only types of things that can be absolutely defined are
raw a priori definitions (i.e. definitions with no absolute application in
reality). For example, a physical object might RESEMBLE a cube, but it
will never BE a cube, as a cube does not have imperfections in the
line segments that make up its edges, and physical objects do.
On the issue of God, one can dream up definitions for God and refute
them all day, but they say nothing about whether or not a transcendent,
infinite creator being exists. Such assertions are relegated to the
realm of faith, not logic. Logic is impotent with respect to God, one
way (proof) or the other (disproof).
----
Take care!
Sincerely, Brian Coughlin
ora...@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
Ron Wigmore
>(Steven R Thurston) writes:
>|> A common defence for God is (Ahem, Brian) that God is beyond logic. Sorry,
>|> this baffles me. What do you think logic is that something can be "beyond"
>it?
>
> I think it's reasonable to turn this question around to Mr. Thurston:
>
> "What do you think logic is, that it encompasses everything?"
May I jump in here? I would put it under the heading of language syntax:
If it isn't logical, then it is illogical
Is it logical to state that 'x' can be beyond logic?
Only if a logical proof can be provided
The proof MUST be logical. What the proof represents need NOT be.
For example, consider the square root of a negative number. This is not
possible using the real number system, but possible using the imaginary
number system (or so I was taught in high school).
So theists (ahem Brian) "where's the MEAT", er, proof.
> It is a critical act of faith to assume that everything is rationally
> reducible. It is no less an act of faith than to believe in a God that
> is beyond complete human understanding.
Oops, you have declared that all physicists who believe that Quantum Theory
is a complete theory (as Bohr does/did(if he's now dead), etc.) have beliefs
based on FAITH. Thus, THEIR science is no different than a religion!
Although those of US, like Einstein, who are realists, have beliefs based
on REALITY. I may have the minority view, but at least I am in good company!
And WE are the only ones into real (tm) science.
Hmmm, any other neorealists out there who also have the "just woken up"
hairstyle? Egads, maybe I am the reincarnate of Einstein! :-) :-)
Ron,,,
_______________________________________________________________________________
|*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*|
Definition Of Demons:
Atheists who have come back from the dead to haunt and torment FUNDIES! :-)
Jon Taylor
|> A common defence for God is (Ahem, Brian) that God is beyond logic. Sorry,
|> this baffles me. What do you think logic is that something can be "beyond" it?
I don't mean to be flip - nor do I mean to answer for Christians - but
I think it's reasonable to turn this question around to Mr. Thurston:
"What do you think logic is, that it encompasses everything?"
It is a critical act of faith to assume that everything is rationally
Bryan Bankhead
> In article <910114190...@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, thu...@ECN.PURDUE.EDU (St
> |> A common defence for God is (Ahem, Brian) that God is beyond logic. Sorry
> |> this baffles me. What do you think logic is that something can be "beyond
>
> I don't mean to be flip - nor do I mean to answer for Christians - but
> I think it's reasonable to turn this question around to Mr. Thurston:
>
> "What do you think logic is, that it encompasses everything?"
>
> It is a critical act of faith to assume that everything is rationally
> reducible. It is no less an act of faith than to believe in a God that
> is beyond complete human understanding.
I run into this structural problem in the theorizing of theits all the
time. Logic and the scientifice method are not just arbritrary means of
going about solving problems. They are codifications of the fundamental
methods that the human mind uses in solving problems. To the extent that
anything can be 'understood' by a human being its behaviour must conform
to logical principles. To the extent that humans can 'know' anything that
knowledge must conform to the principles of science. (scientia ;latin
'knowledge'). I find it amusing that the primary refuge of religion is in
the pose that religion is 'beyond logic'. How nice of them to admit
religion doesn't make sense!
Brian T. Coughlin
In article <4s5TV...@bluemoon.uucp> b...@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead)
writes, in response to Jon Taylor:
>I run into this structural problem in the theorizing of theits all the
>time. Logic and the scientifice method are not just arbritrary means of
>going about solving problems. They are codifications of the fundamental
>methods that the human mind uses in solving problems.
Hi, Bryan!
I'm not certain that I'd agree wholeheartedly with your descriptions of
logic and the Scientific method. Anytime anyone uses such superlative
terms as "the fundamental methods" and such. Logic is a cognitive
process through which humans consider both hypotheses and observed data
with intent to formulate a relevant conlcusion. But to say that this
process is an example of "the fundamental methods that the human mind
uses" would be nisleading; it depends on the situation.
For example, I'm now sitting at the keyboard in a state of relative
calm. I gather data by reading the computer screen's words, I reference
past data in my memory, and I process all of these in the hopes of
coming up with hypotheses which deal with the argumentative tasks at
hand. But picture when I'm sitting at a funeral, devastated over the
death of a loved one. This process no longer applies; emotions "rule
the day", as such... and emotions are what ultimately must resolve
the problem. An analyst may suggest a logical course of action to me
(e.g. "You must accept this death, and move on!"), but ACCEPTANCE of
that is something else again; I'd have to let my heart resolve its
feelings on that issue before ANYTHING could happen. Logic is of
little use when the conclusions are refused... and further logical
arguments will be of no use whatsoever in PERSUADING someone to accept
a conclusion that's being rejected on emotional grounds.
> I find it amusing that the primary refuge of religion is in
>the pose that religion is 'beyond logic'. How nice of them to admit
>religion doesn't make sense!
If you wish to say that belief in God is non-logical (i.e. "illogical",
with negative connotations removed), then I'd agree. But if you wish to
imply that religion is "crazy", "insane", or such by your use of
"doesn't make sense" (which carries a connotation, in moder english, of,
'...which is undesirable'), I'd disagree. That would be a subjective label
placed on theism... and please keep in mind that ALL subjective labels
are devoid of raw logical content.
On that point... if you wish to argue that "logic" is a better process
than "faith", I'd point out that you cannot use logic to argue that
point, any more than fundamentalists can use the Bible to prove that
the Bible is superior to biology textbooks.
Cedric Chin
Hmmm... they'd probably respond that the odds in man ever understanding God
are the same as a smudge of blue-green algae comprehending the works of
Bertrand Russell.
"I wonder if God comprehends the ways of women. Men certainly don't."
In article <910114190...@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, thu...@ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Steven R Thurston) writes:
|> Here's a poser for the Xtian community on this group.
|>
|> A common defence for God is (Ahem, Brian) that God is beyond logic. Sorry,
|> this baffles me. What do you think logic is that something can be "beyond" it?
|>
|>
|> Till Then... thu...@en.ecn.purdue.edu
|> (Steve Thurston)
|>
|> ==============================================================================
|> Disclaimer: I can't claim to know what I'm talking about, so don't expect
|> anyone else to.
|> ==============================================================================
--
Hep, me! Hep, me! I been hyp-no-TIZED!!!
Brian T. Coughlin
In article <91015.1417...@Ryerson.CA> SYST...@Ryerson.CA
(Ron Wigmore) writes, in response to Jon Taylor:
>May I jump in here? I would put it under the heading of language syntax:
>
> If it isn't logical, then it is illogical
> Is it logical to state that 'x' can be beyond logic?
> Only if a logical proof can be provided
>
>The proof MUST be logical. What the proof represents need NOT be.
>So theists (ahem Brian) "where's the MEAT", er, proof.
:) People seem to get phlegm in their throats when mentioning my
name, lately...
Hi, Ron!
Your above syntactical sequence is quite correct. Mind you, the
logical proof need not look ELEGANT; it need only be logical. I
believe I can accomodate you... but I warn you, it'll look mighty
weird...
Logic is a cognitive process through which assumptions (indigenous
to a priori processes) and data (indigenous to a posteriori processes)
are considered when formulating a conclusion. There are two possible
ways in which logic can address a subject:
1) a priori: using assumptions about the subject, deductive reasoning
can generate corollaries from those assumptions. However, a priori
reasoning, by using assumptions, need not have any real correspondence
with actual, existing objects.
2) a posteriori: using gathered data, inductive reasoning generates
corollaries about the role of such data in its environment. If no data
is gathered, this process is inert.
This next step will require a bit of existentialism... :)
Assume for a moment that a transcendent God exists. Also, assume
that no one is directly aware of this (this example, by the way, is
NOT an attempt to describe reality as we know it). By definition of
transcendent, God transcends reality (i.e. His existence is not
entirely within reality as we know it). This implies that, even if ALL
available empirical data were gathered about God, the data would
be incomplete.
So far, we've assumed that the intersection of reality (as we know it)
and God's existence is strictly less than God's existence.
G = God's existence
P = Physical existence (as we know it)
G n P < G
This certainly allows for the selfsame intersection to be the empty set
(i.e. God is COMPLETELY transcendent with respect to empirical evidence,
and leaves no empirical traces whatsoever).
G n P = 0 (possibly)
Let's assume, for a moment, that this is the case. We have just
rendered a posteriori processes inert with respect to God, with
that assumption. The only path, then, rests with a priori processes.
But we've asserted that a priori processes need not have any connection
with reality as we know it; so we've come to the point where absolute
proofs are impossible concerning God. Furthermore, given that there
would be NO empirical data about God (by assumption), a priori processes
would be useless, as there would be no guidelines for establishing
one's hypotheses. In other words, without raw data, one wouldn't know
what to start ASSUMING about God in order to use a priori (assumption-
based) reasoning.
With our assumed transcendent (with respect to empirical evidence)
God, we've indeed shown that logic is impotent with respect to that
God (both a priori and a posteriori). Since there are no other forms
of logical reasoning, we can conclude that logic cannot address God,
and that God is beyond logic's ability to describe. In that sense,
God is beyond logic.
>> It is a critical act of faith to assume that everything is rationally
>> reducible. It is no less an act of faith than to believe in a God that
>> is beyond complete human understanding.
>Oops, you have declared that all physicists who believe that Quantum Theory
>is a complete theory (as Bohr does/did(if he's now dead), etc.) have beliefs
>based on FAITH. Thus, THEIR science is no different than a religion!
That last sentence isn't strictly true; religion and quantum physics
address issues that are FAR removed from each other (e.g. afterlife,
et cet.).
>Although those of US, like Einstein, who are realists, have beliefs based
>on REALITY. I may have the minority view, but at least I am in good company!
>And WE are the only ones into real (tm) science.
Sir, explain to me what your "reality" is. :) Can you prove that such
a thing exists? If not, perhaps reality is beyond logic, as well...
Jim Perry
> Assume for a moment that a transcendent God exists. Also, assume
> that no one is directly aware of this (this example, by the way, is
> NOT an attempt to describe reality as we know it). By definition of
> transcendent... [wave hands]
> ... In that sense,
> God is beyond logic.
Allow me to simplify your argument:
Assume for a moment that God is beyond logic. In that sense, God is
beyond logic. Much simpler, and with all the same explanatory power.
-
Jim Perry pe...@apollo.hp.com HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter
Isn't generally heard, and if it is it doesn't matter!
Brian T. Coughlin
In article <4f48f3c...@apollo.HP.COM> pe...@apollo.HP.COM
(Jim Perry) writes, in response to my article:
>> Assume for a moment that a transcendent God exists. Also, assume
>> that no one is directly aware of this (this example, by the way, is
>> NOT an attempt to describe reality as we know it). By definition of
>> transcendent... [wave hands]
>> ... In that sense,
>> God is beyond logic.
>Allow me to simplify your argument:
>Assume for a moment that God is beyond logic. In that sense, God is
>beyond logic. Much simpler, and with all the same explanatory power.
Dear Jim,
My dear sir, you were not ASKING for explanations; you asked me
for my reasoning behind calling God beyond logic. I showed how neither
a priori nor a posteriori reasoning processes could conclude anything
about God at all. On that vein, I introduced the POSSIBILITY that
God could indeed leave no empirical traces (i.e. transcendence),
setting the business of "God beyond logic" in motion. As you'll
recall, the whole thread was started in response to Mr. Smith's book,
"Atheism: The Case Against God", where I suggested that any attempts to
prove or disprove a transcendent God were doomed to failure. This whole
thread was, on my part, an attempt to elaborate on that thesis. All of my
responses have been "oriented" toward that issue... NOT this new one that
you're starting now (i.e. asking me to prove that God is transcendent).
Let me put it another way: while introducing the possibility of
a transcendent (with respect to empirical data) God, I asserted that
such a being could not be described, proven, or disproven by logic
with any measure of accuracy. You seem to be insisting that I prove
that God IS transcendent, which is quite silly. I can't, and I certainly
don't have to. Again, my intention was to introduce a possible explanation
for my assertion that Godly proofs will always fail... NOT a proof that
this is indeed the case... and I have done so.
With all due respect, Jim, I don't see your problem. Can you elaborate?
Ron Wigmore
ora...@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) says:
>
> On that point... if you wish to argue that "logic" is a better process
> than "faith", I'd point out that you cannot use logic to argue that
> point, any more than fundamentalists can use the Bible to prove that
> the Bible is superior to biology textbooks.
I cannot agree with this. You are using logic in an attempt to show that
logic is something that is not better than faith. By using logic to do
so, you are relegating faith to be a subset of logic. Thus you are
declaring that logic transcends faith, which puts logic on the same level
as your god. Hence, your position has been disproved, in the same way that
claims of your god transcending logic are used to disallow logical proofs
of the nonexistence of said god.
Now, transcending is transcending, be it logic, temporal, linear time, etc.
You cannot state that your god transcend's logic, since this too, is a
logical statement. Thus, we are back to the logic == god position.
Taking your position to its logical conclusion, since you have shown faith
to be a subset of logic, and since it takes faith to believe in your god,
and since you have decreed that logic transcends faith, you have shown that
logic == god. But, your god is not knowable via logic, even though you
have shown that god == logic, when we know logic is knowable. Thus, you have
just provided a logical proof for the non-existence of your god.
Ergo, faith - the last bastion of theists claims for the existence of their
god, has been shown to be non-applicable as grounds for belief in a god.
As a result, *poof*, your god does not exist.
Quickly now Brian, your god is doing the same thing Star Trek's Kirk was
doing in that episode where he's in a space suit fading 'in and out of
existence' and YOU are Mr. Spock, his only hope! :-)
Ron Wigmore
In article <910117233...@blaisejr.Corp.Sun.COM>,
ced...@blaisejr.Corp.Sun.COM (Cedric Chin) says:
>
>"I wonder if God comprehends the ways of women. Men certainly don't."
Women are individuals, as are their male counterparts. What's so difficult
in understanding them?
Ron Wigmore
> (Ron Wigmore) writes, in response to Jon Taylor:
>>
>> Is it logical to state that 'x' can be beyond logic?
>> Only if a logical proof can be provided
>>
>>The proof MUST be logical. What the proof represents need NOT be.
> Logic is a cognitive process through which assumptions (indigenous
> to a priori processes) and data (indigenous to a posteriori processes)
> are considered when formulating a conclusion. There are two possible
> ways in which logic can address a subject:
My perspective: Logic is a result of sensory stimulation (since before
birth and onward) causing our minds to enter into a state of inductive
reasoning. Inductive reasoning leads to a state of congnizance. This
state creates a need for (subset) decisions to be made, via deductive
reasoning, from the whole of cognizance. (eg. eat, sleep, go wee-wee).
> 1) a priori: using assumptions about the subject, deductive reasoning
> can generate corollaries from those assumptions. However, a priori
> reasoning, by using assumptions, need not have any real correspondence
> with actual, existing objects.
'A priori', above, is a non sequiter, and so it does not exist. The attempt
at stating that something is 'a priori' is invalid since deductive reasoning
was used to substantiate it. 'A priori' is a misinterpretation of what
modern knowledge defines as our 'heuristic' mind.
All thought patterns involving language are purely deductive, since
we have created symbols and syntax (ie. language) to represent things.
The operative word here is 'represent' since an ice cube can be called
water, since it is made of H2O. Ice simply has a lower 'energy' level.
Only through the use of intuition can one be involved in inductive reasoning.
Thus, within this context, we see that 'a priori == intuition'.
(I bet you I get yelled (laughed?) at for having that opinion!)
> 2) a posteriori: using gathered data, inductive reasoning generates
> corollaries about the role of such data in its environment. If no data
> is gathered, this process is inert.
Don't sell imagination short, it's a powerfull thing. :-)
Also, 'a posteriori' involves deductive reasoning within the framework
of what we have inductively reasoned (ie. our heuristic mind).
> This next step will require a bit of existentialism... :)
By adding existentialism in as part of your proof, you are assuming that
it is valid. The remainder of the proof is invalid until proof of its
validity has been provided. But, we shall proceed in the interim in lieu
of this proof.
>(two assumptions, a definition of 'transcends', and its implication deleted)
> So far, we've assumed that the intersection of reality (as we know it)
> and God's existence is strictly less than God's existence.
>
> G = God's existence P = Physical existence (as we know it)
>
> G n P < G
>
> This certainly allows for the selfsame intersection to be the empty set
> (i.e. God is COMPLETELY transcendent with respect to empirical evidence,
> and leaves no empirical traces whatsoever).
Using a bit of algebra, we conclude that "n P < ?". Thus 'physical
existence' has been proved not to be, if we remove the definition of a
god. This may be valid, but first, we must show existentialism as being
viable. (Proof pending).
> G n P = 0 (possibly)
>
> Let's assume, for a moment, that this is the case. We have just
> rendered a posteriori processes inert with respect to God, with
> that assumption. The only path, then, rests with a priori processes.
I'll have to wait until I read your repsonse to my earlier assertion
that 'a priori' is, by your definition, a non sequiter
> But we've asserted that a priori processes need not have any connection
> with reality as we know it; so we've come to the point where absolute
> proofs are impossible concerning God. Furthermore, given that there
> would be NO empirical data about God (by assumption), a priori processes
> would be useless, as there would be no guidelines for establishing
> one's hypotheses. In other words, without raw data, one wouldn't know
> what to start ASSUMING about God in order to use a priori (assumption-
> based) reasoning.
My brain just did a 'loop de loop'. How can something have 'no connection
with reality' and yet be possible for us to be aware of it? Hmmm, must be
more existential stuff (proof pending).
> With our assumed transcendent (with respect to empirical evidence)
The only evidence is a definition.
> God, we've indeed shown that logic is impotent with respect to that
> God (both a priori and a posteriori). Since there are no other forms
> of logical reasoning, we can conclude that logic cannot address God,
> and that God is beyond logic's ability to describe. In that sense,
> God is beyond logic.
But is this not circular? ie. assume that something exists for which
there is no evidence. Then, look for evidence. Discover that none exists.
Ergo, the assumption is correct.
>>> It is a critical act of faith to assume that everything is rationally
>>> reducible. It is no less an act of faith than to believe in a God that
>>> is beyond complete human understanding.
>
>>Oops, you have declared that all physicists who believe that Quantum Theory
>>is a complete theory (as Bohr does/did(if he's now dead), etc.) have beliefs
>>based on FAITH. Thus, THEIR science is no different than a religion!
>
> That last sentence isn't strictly true; religion and quantum physics
> address issues that are FAR removed from each other (e.g. afterlife,
> et cet.).
I guess you have not read the quantum theory interpretation of the world
as an 'undivided wholeness' (as defined by Schrodinger and Bohm) wherein
a 'flick' on the quantum level causes Schrodinger's dead cat to come back
to life! (No wonder I agree with Einstein! :-))
>>Although those of US, like Einstein, who are realists, have beliefs based
>>on REALITY. I may have the minority view, but at least I am in good company!
>>And WE are the only ones into real (tm) science.
>
> Sir, explain to me what your "reality" is. :) Can you prove that such
> a thing exists? If not, perhaps reality is beyond logic, as well...
My 'reality' is my understanding that people, whilst asleep - and thus
not privy to sensory input - can wake up without legs. For this to happen,
however, you have to be currently living in Kuwait/Iraq/Isreal and have a
bomb go off in your home. (no smiley)
As far as 'proving it' goes, I can provide you with the empherical evidence.
You can form your own conclusions. :-)
On a less serious note, philosophy is not reality. Reality is the framework
within which philosophy, etc. exist.
As far as 'reality is beyond logic' goes, reality == physics and 'logic ==
inter-reactions of physics' (like dropping a hammer on your foot).
Jim Perry
>Re: Jim Perry
>
>
>In article <4f48f3c...@apollo.HP.COM> pe...@apollo.HP.COM
> (Jim Perry) writes, in response to my article:
>
>
>>Allow me to simplify your argument:
>>Assume for a moment that God is beyond logic. In that sense, God is
>>beyond logic. Much simpler, and with all the same explanatory power.
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> My dear sir, you were not ASKING for explanations; you asked me
> for my reasoning behind calling God beyond logic.
Nope; someone else did. This thread meanders. I simply observe that
reasoning from the presupposition of your conclusion, or some variation
thereof, is guaranteed to reach your conclusion, i.e. begs the question.
Presupposing something "transcendent", i.e. being real and yet outside
reality, existing and yet outside existence, is furthermore a
contradiction, from which anything can be derived (and has been, in the
case of God).
> As you'll
> recall, the whole thread was started in response to Mr. Smith's book,
> "Atheism: The Case Against God", where I suggested that any attempts to
> prove or disprove a transcendent God were doomed to failure.
It is clearly impossible for one person to prove something false that
another person accepts as axiomatically true. In this sense you are right;
on the other hand it's at best misleading to phrase this as "God is beyond
logic", implying that arguments with respect to the existence or qualities
of deities are not subject to question or debate at all. In your personal
theology it is quite acceptable for you to reason that you know/believe
that God (having certain properties) exists, and can thus reason from that
axiomatic belief to explicate why it is that reason can't lead one to that
God. *In this forum*, however, that's not sufficient; what would be
interesting here is any reason to suppose that "transcendent" or
"supernatural" things can exist *at all*, let alone thinking that some
particular ones exist. As can be seen in this forum all the time, there's
a wide gap between not being able to prove something and not being able to
offer the least evidence for it.
You've demonstrated that if one assumes that "X" exists, and that "X" has
properties beyond reality (whatever that means), that it might be that
*all* of "X"'s properties are beyond reality. This, to me, proves that it
is not real, it has no existence, it does not exist. At any event this
leaves us incapable of saying anything meaningful about "X", such as that
it exists, that it is "God", the personal creator of the universe, or that
it has interests in human behavior. You suggest that "revelation", a form
of communication between this unknowable thing and humans, and "faith", a
form of knowledge acquisition beyond and inaccessible to reason, exist, but
these too are unsubstantiated, or supported only through circularity.
> With all due respect, Jim, I don't see your problem. Can you elaborate?
Consider your environment. In discussions with fellow theists, it is fine
to discuss the relative properties of God based on your shared axiomatic
acceptance of his existence. Here, arguments like "God is above logic"
must go beyond presupposing God's existence and properties, because we
don't share that axiom. "God is above logic" or "God moves in mysterious
ways" are simply cop-outs. If unquestioned they allow one to present any
argument whatever, however silly ("the All-Powerful Designer and Creator of
This and Any Other Universes has Rules for the Appropriate Interfacing of
Human Genitalia"). Worse, they *have* traditionally, and continue to be
used, in exactly that way. This is the heart of organized religion's
dogma: that their god is inherently unknowable, except to the priests(*) of
that religion, but its commands (as relayed by those priests) must be
obeyed without question, despite the apparent irrationality of those
commands. (*) Some variants on Christianity extend this to all believers.
-
Jim Perry pe...@apollo.hp.com HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
It was believed afterwards that the man was a lunatic,
because there was no sense in what he said. - Mark Twain, _War Prayer_
Graham Matthews
>> It is a critical act of faith to assume that everything is rationally
>> reducible. It is no less an act of faith than to believe in a God that
>> is beyond complete human understanding.
Ron Wigmore in reply:
>Oops, you have declared that all physicists who believe that Quantum Theory
>is a complete theory (as Bohr does/did(if he's now dead), etc.) have beliefs
>based on FAITH. Thus, THEIR science is no different than a religion!
>
>Although those of US, like Einstein, who are realists, have beliefs based
>on REALITY. I may have the minority view, but at least I am in good company!
>And WE are the only ones into real (tm) science.
And Ron what exactly is reality?
Until you have a satisfactory answer to this question you then the
'science' you outline is based on a faith - namely the faith that you
know what reality is.
graham
--
Graham Matthews
Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney
Internet: gra...@maths.su.oz.au
Ron Wigmore
says:
>>
>>Although those of US, like Einstein, who are realists, have beliefs based
>>on REALITY. I may have the minority view, but at least I am in good company!
>>And WE are the only ones into real (tm) science.
>
>And Ron what exactly is reality?
Easy! Reality is that which does not involve theism, supernatural, ESP,
telling the future, ghosts and other spirits, out of body experiences,
telekenesous(sp!), and anything else that stems from superstitions of
past cultures. Reality is what is described by the world of physics.
(But, neorealism physics, none of the 'flick on the quantum level' and
Schrodinger's dead cat comes back to life! ie. matter exists physics).
>Until you have a satisfactory answer to this question you then the
>'science' you outline is based on a faith - namely the faith that you
>know what reality is.
No faith required with my beliefs. You take a chain saw, cut me in two,
and I'm dead. Period. My conscious existence becomes 'null', my physical
existence ends up on a slab in a morgue, decomposing as it lays there.
Then, some gorgous woman, with a firm 'bod', begins getting stimulated,
like she never has before, as her hands explore every organ of my body,
parts that no woman else has ever explored before. Is that erotic, or
what? :-)
Even in death I'll be able to bring pleasure to a woman!
So, is my answer satisfactory?
Tom Ng
>Until you have a satisfactory answer to this question you then the
>'science' you outline is based on a faith - namely the faith that you
>know what reality is.
This reminds me of something I saw on Nova (if memory serves). A Chinese
philosopher once wrote something like - I awoke from a dream that I was a
butterfly. But was I dreaming that I was a butterfly or am I a butterfly
now dreaming that I am a man?
Reality is only what we perceive thru our senses and interpreted thru our
minds. What I think you are saying is that different minds interpret the
information passed on by our senses differently. In that sense, reality is
only your opinion!
If I hit you with a rock, then in my mind I could say that I didn't do
anything wrong because the rock didn't really exist. Some 'insane' people
or mass murders might think this way. One of my favorite sayings is -
Insanity is merely a higher state of awareness. :-)
I'm not eloquent enough to make a convincing definition of reality but I do
want to make a comment on how this all relates to religion.
If you define a all powerful god then the whole question
of reality is irrelevant. Whatever we do or whatever has already happened
doesn't matter since this all powerful being can change it. This is the
plot difficulty that the new Star Trek has with Q. If characters died
or if the earth was blownup by the Borg then conceivably Q could showup
and make it all better.
Religion is the same way. It's like a drug that's used to make people
feel better and whether or not any of it is real is irrelevant since
the effects of the drug is the same. (I'm sure Ron House is balking
at this now :-) I feel the drug analogy is very appropriate. Religion
like a drug has beneficial effects but it can also be abused. It can
give support to a person too emotionally weak to accept mortality.
(Promise of an eternal afterlife)
It can also be used to give strength to warriors involved in a
Jihad (sp?). I remember a history program that said some Arab fighters
in ancient days where given a hit of hash before going into combat. I'm
not sure if you consider this an abuse of religion or not.
To sum it up, religion does not have to relate to reality. The effects
are the same.
-------------
G'd day, ay! EETD6301|ADVI...@RYERSON.CA or ...!tmsoft!ryescs!tng
-Tom Ng "Oh well, such is life..." - Dave Mason
Graham Matthews
>In article <graham.664499823@bizet>, gra...@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
>says:
>>>
>>>Although those of US, like Einstein, who are realists, have beliefs based
>>>on REALITY. I may have the minority view, but at least I am in good company!
>>>And WE are the only ones into real (tm) science.
>>
>>And Ron what exactly is reality?
>Easy! Reality is that which does not involve theism, supernatural, ESP,
>telling the future, ghosts and other spirits, out of body experiences,
>telekenesous(sp!), and anything else that stems from superstitions of
>past cultures. Reality is what is described by the world of physics.
>(But, neorealism physics, none of the 'flick on the quantum level' and
>Schrodinger's dead cat comes back to life! ie. matter exists physics).
In other words you take as your initial assumption (ie: article of faith)
that reality is 'that which does not involve theism, supernatural, ESP,
telling the future....'
Would you care to try to prove this assumption to be valid? (hint: proving
the validity of an assumption is 'very difficult' :-) )
When you despair of this proof you will realise that your beliefs do
in fact involve all sorts of faiths (eg. that reality is as you DEFINE
it, that what you observe is in fact occuring, that the laws of logic
hold in reality, that reaility even exists ......). They may not
look like your usual articles of faith but they are!
Ron Wigmore
says:
>>>
>>>And Ron what exactly is reality?
>>Easy! Reality is that which does not involve theism, supernatural, ESP,
>>telling the future, ghosts and other spirits, out of body experiences,
>>telekenesous(sp!), and anything else that stems from superstitions of
>>past cultures. Reality is what is described by the world of physics.
>>(But, neorealism physics, none of the 'flick on the quantum level' and
>>Schrodinger's dead cat comes back to life! ie. matter exists physics).
>
>In other words you take as your initial assumption (ie: article of faith)
>that reality is 'that which does not involve theism, supernatural, ESP,
>telling the future....'
Nope, to both the assumption and it supposedly being an article of faith!
>Would you care to try to prove this assumption to be valid? (hint: proving
>the validity of an assumption is 'very difficult' :-) )
You bet! It's Easy! Everytime people say that one cannot be sure of
their senses, they always give examples like 'what if someone slipped
you (unknowingly) some LSD' or 'what if some high-tech space aliens
had a device which could mimic reality exactly'. etc. All of these
attempts at disproof have one thing in common, they implicitly state
that our senses, if not 'being toyed with', can accurately interpret
reality. Thus, the dissenters themselves have provided the proof.
ESP, supernatural, etc. fall under the catagory, in addition to a
lack of evidence.
>When you despair of this proof you will realise that your beliefs do
>in fact involve all sorts of faiths (eg. that reality is as you DEFINE
>it, that what you observe is in fact occuring, that the laws of logic
>hold in reality, that reaility even exists ......). They may not
>look like your usual articles of faith but they are!
No despair here (I thought the new net-spelling for this word was mow
dispair!). :-) Any beliefs I have which are based simply on 'faith'
are, oh, stuff like 'Our system crashed today, it looks like 'x' was
the cause, I cannot say for certain, but I will proceed as if I was,
while keeping my mind open in case new data presents itself'.
Convinced now of reality being real?
house ron
>Easy! Reality is that which does not involve theism, supernatural, ESP,
>telling the future, ghosts and other spirits, out of body experiences,
>telekenesous(sp!), and anything else that stems from superstitions of
>past cultures. Reality is what is described by the world of physics.
>(But, neorealism physics, none of the 'flick on the quantum level' and
>Schrodinger's dead cat comes back to life! ie. matter exists physics).
You're having us on, right?!
--
Regards,
Ron House. (s64...@zeus.usq.edu.au)
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
Ron Wigmore
>
>SYST...@Ryerson.CA (Ron Wigmore) writes:
>
>>Easy! Reality is that which does not involve theism, supernatural, ESP,
>>telling the future, ghosts and other spirits, out of body experiences,
>>telekenesous(sp!), and anything else that stems from superstitions of
>>past cultures. Reality is what is described by the world of physics.
>>(But, neorealism physics, none of the 'flick on the quantum level' and
>>Schrodinger's dead cat comes back to life! ie. matter exists physics).
>
>You're having us on, right?!
If you didn't drop a word from the above, then I guess it's an
Australian saying. Could you provide me with the "Canadian, Eh"
equivalent.
mathew
> It's Easy! Everytime people say that one cannot be sure of
> their senses, they always give examples like 'what if someone slipped
> you (unknowingly) some LSD' or 'what if some high-tech space aliens
> had a device which could mimic reality exactly'. etc. All of these
> attempts at disproof have one thing in common, they implicitly state
> that our senses, if not 'being toyed with', can accurately interpret
> reality. Thus, the dissenters themselves have provided the proof.
False.
Look at this:
/ \
/ \
/ \
<------------------->
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
>-------------------<
/ \
/ \
/ \
The horizontal part of the bottom shape looks longer than that of the top
one, does it not? Yet if you measure them, they are the same length. Proof
that your perceptions cannot be trusted, even though I have not tinkered with
your mind in any way.
[ If the above optical illusion doesn't work on you, substitute one which
does.]
There are countless other examples of people seeing things which are not
there, not seeing things which are there, and gaining a faulty view of
things --- all without any toying with the senses. It's a well-known problem
when witnesses give evidence.
About a week ago, I thought I saw a large spider crawling across the ceiling
of my room; I flinched away, because I'm terrified of spiders. Turning back
to look again I realized that there was nothing there. [ No, I haven't been
to see "Arachnophobia", and don't intend to. ] Many people suffer from
hallucinations, particularly during adolescence and when under stress.
> Convinced now of reality being real?
No way.
mathew.
--
Internet: mat...@mantis.co.uk / mathew%mantis...@ukc.ac.uk
UUCP: mat...@mantis.UUCP / ...!mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
If you know anything significant about ISDN, please mail me...
David Keith Maslen
I don't know much about philosophy. Maybe someone could criticize this in
such a way as to raise the level of this thread.
Apopogies to all, I'm just trying to spread a little uncertainty.
Anyway, here's my bit:
There seems to be quite a problem with notions like reality and existence.
For instance one might want to define reality to be the totality of things
that exist. In such a case one might have a problem with statements like
"Reality exists". If reality is the name for the collection of things that
exist, then if reality exists, it is a member of that very collection --
some people wouldn't like that.
On a different tack:
There is a problem with the notion of existence.
"... exists" doesn't make sense as a predicate -- at least in the way that
most people would like it to.
To see this, assume we have a predicate "... exists"
Lets say we don't want everything to exist.
Then, its not the case that forall x (x exists)
so, there must be some x for which (x exists) is false
i.e. There exists some object which doesn't exist.
This sounds pretty dumb.
Maybe we could say that everything exists in some possible world.
Then the problem would be to find out what was in our world or at least
accessible to it.
All these wrangles seem pretty silly when you think of a question like
"Is there a busstop on your street"
Maybe one could say "If I was on your street right now, would I perceive
a busstop" . Counterfactuals are not so easy to deal with though.
--
David Keith Maslen
mas...@zariski.harvard.edu
representing himself only.
Mathemagician
[about reality actually being there if you aren't deluded]
>False.
>Look at this:
[The >-< vs <-> illusion]
>The horizontal part of the bottom shape looks longer than that of the top
>one, does it not? Yet if you measure them, they are the same length. Proof
>that your perceptions cannot be trusted, even though I have not tinkered with
>your mind in any way.
No, you have tinkered with the mind. That is because of the
diagonal lines being associated with certain things in perception.
It deals with perspective.
They call it an optical "illusion" for a reason, you know.
>There are countless other examples of people seeing things which are not
>there, not seeing things which are there, and gaining a faulty view of
>things --- all without any toying with the senses. It's a well-known problem
>when witnesses give evidence.
But if we can be reasonably assured that such things aren't
happening...Ron's argument makes sense.
--
Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
Ron Wigmore
>
>SYST...@Ryerson.CA (Ron Wigmore) writes:
>> It's Easy! Everytime people say that one cannot be sure of
>> their senses, they always give examples like 'what if someone slipped
>> you (unknowingly) some LSD' or 'what if some high-tech space aliens
>> had a device which could mimic reality exactly'. etc. All of these
>> attempts at disproof have one thing in common, they implicitly state
>> that our senses, if not 'being toyed with', can accurately interpret
>> reality. Thus, the dissenters themselves have provided the proof.
>
>False.
Okay, I did not include ALL ways of fooling one's senses. My assertion
is still valid, IMHO.
>Look at this:
> (optical illusion deleted to save space)
Yes, but this was just an optical illusion.
>The horizontal part of the bottom shape looks longer than that of the top
>one, does it not? Yet if you measure them, they are the same length. Proof
>that your perceptions cannot be trusted, even though I have not tinkered with
>your mind in any way.
No. This is only proof that ALL of our senses are needed to properly
perceive reality. Note how you said that we could measure it to verify
what our eyes were telling us. If vision was all that was needed, we may
not have evolved with any other of our senses.
>There are countless other examples of people seeing things which are not
>there, not seeing things which are there, and gaining a faulty view of
>things --- all without any toying with the senses. It's a well-known problem
>when witnesses give evidence.
I never said it was not possible to fool *a* sense. (Put your hand in
bucket of ice cold water for a minute, then into one at 60 degrees. The
one at 60 degress will seem hot). The ability of fooling a sense does
not in anyway diminish the 'reality of reality'.
>About a week ago, I thought I saw a large spider crawling across the ceiling
>of my room; I flinched away, because I'm terrified of spiders. Turning back
>to look again I realized that there was nothing there. [ No, I haven't been
>to see "Arachnophobia", and don't intend to. ] Many people suffer from
>hallucinations, particularly during adolescence and when under stress.
Aw! An emotional state induces an instinctive 'fight or flight' type of
reaction (ie. do one or the other or die). The unachievable requirement of
processing, rationally 2 hours of sensory data within half a second is what
enabled us to evolve to the point where we can have this discussion. It is
now being used to disprove the 'reality of reality'.
Is not this equating of the perceptions deemed to escape a potentially
hostile situation (to avoid death) not applicable to what one perceives
during a calm, rational review of what our senses tell us? Survival comes
first. ie. Get your butt out of here and figure out what's what later.
Egads, that sounds too straw manish. Hmmm, phobias are irrational fears.
A fear of heights, and one's actions as a result, is irrational. However,
they do not in any way alter the true nature of a tall building.
>> Convinced now of reality being real?
>
>No way.
You should be. :-)
house ron
>In article <s64421.665842952@zeus>, s64...@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) says:
>>>>
>>>>>Easy! Reality is that which does not involve theism, supernatural, ESP,
>>>>>telling the future, ghosts and other spirits, out of body experiences,
>>>>>telekenesous(sp!), and anything else that stems from superstitions of
>>>>>past cultures. Reality is what is described by the world of physics.
>>>>>(But, neorealism physics, none of the 'flick on the quantum level' and
>>>>>Schrodinger's dead cat comes back to life! ie. matter exists physics).
>> [....]
>>You're having me on! Pulling my leg, telling an untruth in a joking
>>manner!
>>
>>But seriously, I wondered how anyone might _seriously_ write a definition
>>of reality in terms of a specific list of personal (dis)beliefs. Sort of
>>like saying "Reality is the set of all things I believe exist." A bit
>>funny.
>But I was (am) being serious. Hopefully this shows what a happy, contented
>person I am! :-) I mean, who else's beliefs can induce a warm
>belly-chuckle in others?
We can say "This is what I believe reality is", but not "I define reality
to be the things I believe to exist. Here is a wise old Chinese fable:
The Two Ronnies
Stone the crows! Hey Ron, come to the window, quick!
Stone who, Ron? Eh?
'Stone the crows', Ron! It means 'Jesus Christ' in Australian.
Jesus Christ, Ron! Whatever's the matter?
Just get here quick, Ron! Pegasus the flying horse is doing laps of
the park 50 feet up in the air!
Have your little joke, Ron. GOOD GO.. I mean, BY ALL THAT'S OBSERVABLE!
That really DOES look like Pegasus the flying horse! (Who doesn't exist.)
Told you so Ron.
It's a fake! A balloon, or a disguised helicopter.
I don't think so Ron, it looks very real, and Look! It's doing a..
HEY YOU DOW...
Poor chap.
Now Ron, balloons and helicopters can't do THAT!
I think you're right, Ron. I'm convinced!
Me too Ron, but I'm still confused. I never thought Pegasus existed.
When did he come into existence.
Really Ron, that's obvious! He came into existence just after you
convinced me flying horses can't do woopsies!
-----------------------------------------
[end of the silly season]
>Is it not irrational to believe in something for which there is no
>direct/indirect evidence? In 'believing', I am referring only to what
>my senses have told me and may ever tell me.
I believe in my own consciousness, yet my senses tell me nothing
about it. It is what the senses report TO, not what they report ON.
Yet I'm quite convinced. But on another level, you are correct.
>>And of course, when one says "It's the same as physics, except the bits
>>I don't like," then one's credibility as a rational thinker, untainted
>>by "Faith", is somewhat dented.
>Not 'don't like', I just don't see Schrodingers cat, etc. as being valid.
>Hmmm, accepting that all of what my senses tell me, and will ever be able
>to tell me, is all that there is, affects my credibility as a rational
>thinker? Can I redeem myself by saying that *my* philosophy only deals
>with the (directly/indirectly) observable world? ie. only things which
>can affect us in the observable world exist.
This is where your view has some problems. QM is a well-validated
physical theory. The question is how to interpret it. Schroedinger's
cat was a thought experiment to bring out significant differences
between various interpretations. But QM proper is as well verified as
a physical theory could possibly be. If it is wrong, the plain hard
evidence is at least strong enough to assure us that ANY replacement
theory will still have most of the 'funny' features you object to.
These are observed facts. The real world has some _very_ odd properties
which most writers in alt.atheism seem to ignore when they talk about
bricks and concrete.
>To do otherwise would be to engage in the thought methodologies of past
>cultures.
Right, so stop doing otherwise. :-)
>...
>I am secure in the knowledge that one day (hopefully a very long time from
>now) I will die. I am simply one who does not need a 'reason' for existence.
And I bet you're a good person in the bargain. A fact which shows the
lie in most 'believer's' criticisms of atheism. (But not mine, of course. :-))
>>No, you just _must_ be having me on! :-)
>Alas, but no. Just the byproduct of my *personal* rational epistemology.
>A 'here and now' mentality essentially engraned in me since childhood.
But we can _all_ change if we really try, Ron! :-)
>Ron,,,
Ron Wigmore
> (bunch deleted)
>We can say "This is what I believe reality is", but not "I define reality
>to be the things I believe to exist. Here is a wise old Chinese fable:
Hmmm, if I define what reality is, but include in the definition "based on
current empherical data", does this not let me explore reality at the same
time I apply it to everyday life? (Like building a nuclear reactor while
still building on our model of physics). ie. it was not an omniscient-type
of statement, I'm still correlating, crossreferencing available data, but
"somebody asked for a status report, and so I answered".
In the 'here and now', I do define reality as your second quote said. That
is being pragmatic, admittedly, but the alternative is to engage in wishful
thinking instead of dealing with things in life (eg. not building that
reactor since, well, the theory might not be completely correct).
I did not mean what I stated (in the deleted part above) to sound like I
was making a statement as an omniscient god would.
>>Is it not irrational to believe in something for which there is no
>>direct/indirect evidence? In 'believing', I am referring only to what
>>my senses have told me and may ever tell me.
>
>I believe in my own consciousness, yet my senses tell me nothing
>about it. It is what the senses report TO, not what they report ON.
>Yet I'm quite convinced. But on another level, you are correct.
Does not 'report to ... report on' pre-suppose that there is an 'extra'
controller/judge component in us. You're referring to the 'Mind versus
Brain' topic that philosophers love to discuss, correct? If we define Brain
as the physical part (ie. a noun) and Mind as the physical part in action
(ie. a verb), then are not our senses simply reporting to what our senses
have previously sensed? Our consciousness can now be defined as nothing
more than the contrast between past senses (memory) and current senses.
Or, to phrase it differently, consciousness is simply the result of both
positive and negative physical feedback mechanisms interacting with the
senses of old versus the senses of new. Since even before we were born,
our (then) current memories started a flywheel (brain) spinning, our (now)
current memories are what keep it spinning.
Mind/Brain are the same thing, just referred to in different contexts.
>>>And of course, when one says "It's the same as physics, except the bits
>>>I don't like," then one's credibility as a rational thinker, untainted
>>>by "Faith", is somewhat dented.
>
>>Not 'don't like', I just don't see Schrodingers cat, etc. as being valid.
>>Hmmm, accepting that all of what my senses tell me, and will ever be able
>>to tell me, is all that there is, affects my credibility as a rational
>>thinker? Can I redeem myself by saying that *my* philosophy only deals
>>with the (directly/indirectly) observable world? ie. only things which
>>can affect us in the observable world exist.
>
>This is where your view has some problems. QM is a well-validated
>physical theory. The question is how to interpret it. Schroedinger's
>cat was a thought experiment to bring out significant differences
>between various interpretations. But QM proper is as well verified as
>a physical theory could possibly be. If it is wrong, the plain hard
>evidence is at least strong enough to assure us that ANY replacement
>theory will still have most of the 'funny' features you object to.
Exactly! The 'neo-realism' I referred to IS an interpretation of QM. One
of the books I've read on QM (titled 'Quantum Reality'), instead of just
giving the author's view of QM, explained eight(?) different views on QM.
Since the way the author defined new-realism is the way I see QM, I have
acquired the label of 'neo-realism'.
We (neo-realists) are simply those who believe that matter is real (tm).
I am not defining matter as being 'atoms' (as conventionally defined),
rather that there is a fundamental building block(s) (of sorts) which makes
up all matter. (You should see/read some of the interpretations of QM, to
me, they make Star Trek seem very real! Except, time travel ain't possible!)
>These are observed facts. The real world has some _very_ odd properties
>which most writers in alt.atheism seem to ignore when they talk about
>bricks and concrete.
Exactly! And just like Newtonian physics explained a lot, but left some
'very odd' properties unexplained, so do the current views of QM. Think
of the saying "can't see the trees for the forest". If we can 'step back'
far enough, these 'very odd' properties may end up being explained as very
common sense things (like lightening must have seemed to people 2,000 years
ago versus today).
>>To do otherwise would be to engage in the thought methodologies of past
>>cultures.
>
>Right, so stop doing otherwise. :-)
But, I'm not! Actually, I am! They didn't stop when Netwon said what he
said. They didn't stop when Einstein said what he said. By 'past cultures'
I simply meant "no ghost, goblins, ESP, supernatural"-type of explainations.
Life is not an illusion, nor is it a hallucination. It is reality.
Graham Matthews
>We (neo-realists) are simply those who believe that matter is real (tm).
>I am not defining matter as being 'atoms' (as conventionally defined),
>rather that there is a fundamental building block(s) (of sorts) which makes
>up all matter. (You should see/read some of the interpretations of QM, to
>me, they make Star Trek seem very real! Except, time travel ain't possible!)
Actually Ron time travel is 'allowed' under some interpretations through
a link with the honeycombe structure of space time.