In any forum where debate occurs between atheists and theists, one will always find plenty of questions, directed at us as unbelievers. It appears that believers simply can't wrap their brains around how or why we arrive at the conclusions we do, though we've addressed it hundreds of times.
For example, two years ago in the AARP Religious forum, I had patiently gone through the accepted modus operandi pertaining to scientific epistemological expostulation. At some juncture, the evangelical reo4 him then asked:
"Who made these rules? Have these rules been validated?"
I replied again, patiently:
These are not "rules" as such but the criteria of the normative scientific community - as to what constitutes the description, analysis of objects of inquiry in any field of scientific study. As Henry Margenau notes, to a larger extent they can also be interpreted as the criteria for the general intelligent rationalist, motivated by principles that have been with us since the dawn of the Enlightenment.
reo then asked further:
"What if there is an "actual epistemology" which cannot be independently verified by others? Aren't there lots of things which "others" cannot verify for many different reasons? Who are the "others" whom you view to be valid verifiers?"
To which I responded:
If an epistemology (or claim of such) cannot be independently verified - then it likely doesn't exist other in a subjective template for the benefit of only a relative few biased proponents. As a naturalist example, let us take "cold fusion". In the 80s two researchers - Pons and Flesichmann, tried to assert the validity of "cold fusion" - e.g. that hydrogen fusion could occur at normal room temperature with water, etc.
The underlying new epistemology would have defeated the long held one that nuclear fusion can only occur at extremely high temperatures (> 10 million Celsius) - which allows for the ability of separate protons to penetrate the Coulomb repulsive barrier that inhibits like charges from coming too close. This would have marked a major milestone.
Alas, no one that attempted to duplicate their results was successful, Hence, NO independent verification. When enough details were provided for such duplication, the analyses showed that the excess heat evolved could be explained within the margin of experimental error.
Hence, the epistemology of cold fusion was shown to be invalid.
"Others" are those such as the scientists who falsified the claims of Pons and Flesichmann in the case of cold fusion. "Others" are mainly scientists who will conduct or try to , the independent tests. The field of these "others" will depend on the claim made. Hence, for "intelligent design" - the "others" will be evolutionary biologists who will test ID's claims - assuming they ever provide tests for falsification! As opposed to merely ruminating that such and such structure or organ suggests "design" and we are to sit up and take note.
and again, reo4 him:
"What if there is another paradigm or reality at work, in which some can validate and discern and others cannot? Why couldn't this view of reality also be at work? "
To wit, my reply:
Then the advocates of this bifurcated paradigm need to explain why some can validate it and others can't, and render this explanation as a scientifically testable hypothesis, not merely an aimless speculation. Again, the rubric at work is test, test, test. If this is too much, simply admit what you embrace is religious faith but no science, and all will be well.
And on and on and on.
As we see, the fundie (reo4him) never processes what has been said, he merely keeps popping out questions hoping to "catch" us (unbelievers) at the other end. In this way, the game never ends. Either the fundie must win by an easy "gotcha" trick question that has no answer, or he just keeps on popping out questions like Behemoth does baby demons!
Other evangelicals also keep the question gambit going, but one has to wonder if, at some point, the questions don't cross over into howlers. Consider the following question:
Q/Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes ? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can't that be God ?
Well, because "God" discommodes the algorithm! Consider, EITHER:
1) Everything has a cause OR
2) There is something that doesn't.
Thus, the "first Cause" gambit collapses since, if everything has a cause, then "God" must too. And - if Something doesn't have a cause - that something could as well be the physical universe, as God. Indeed, it is a superior cause since it requires no ad hoc addition of a external, or supernatural uncaused cause.
The person (fundie) who objects to this, must then answer the question: "Why cannot the physical universe be taken as the uncaused cause?"
Indeed, we already have the full mathematical basis for such an occurrence which has actually been published. . In his definitive paper, `Universe Before Planck Time - A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756, T. Padmanabhan shows how this can be done by treating conformal space-time as a quantum variable in de Sitter 4-space.
For those of us who grok it, therefore, the concept of acausal determinism along with the language of mathematics to describe it for the onset of the cosmos - is all we need. Just because 99.99% don't buy or comprehend it, doesn't mean we're going to 'pack it in' and buy into the childhood fable version of the cosmos' origin, predicated on an outdated causality
Another howler:
Q.If atheism is true: The universe has laws. These laws cannot be violated.
This is a "howler" because in other contexts (e.g. biblical miracles) the fundie is perfectly happy to allow all the laws in the world or universe to be violated....at will!
Violate the conservation of mass-energy? No problemo! Just let a guy take a few loaves and fishes and multiply them to the masses.
Violate the local law of gravity? No problemo! Just let the same artificial confection "walk on water".
Violate the law of entropy? No problemo! Just let the same invented guy bring back a guy that's been a corpse three days.
The fact is the fundies cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they demand natural laws that can't be violated, they must demand it for themselves as well! That means they must eschew the claim of any "miracle" once it violates an established law of nature.
Lastly:
Q. If the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily ? If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute ? Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs
First, the person here confuses "laws of logic" with absolute laws. In fact, because one can have more than one form of logical apparatus (e.g. Boolean vs. quantum logic) then clearly there can't be one uniform set of logical rules or laws!
In the case of Boolean logic, one employs the binary responses and methods of the computer - for example in logic gates that process 1s and os. Yes = 1, no = 0.
Consider, in classical (Boolean) logic two statements p and q, are contrary if they cannot both hold, i.e. if:
~ (p / q)
Two statements: p, q are contradictory, if:
[p -> (~ q) ] / [ (~p) -> q]
and so on.
However, the fundaments of quantum mechanics (validated by experiment, e.g. the Aspect experiment) diverge from this. Quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic. More specifically, in quantum mechanics each probability-bearing proposition of the form "the value of physical quantity A lies in the range B" is represented by a projection operator on a Hilbert space H.
These form a non-Boolean, non-distributive – ortho-complementary lattice. Quantum-mechanical states correspond exactly to probability measures (suitably defined) on this lattice. What are we to make of this? Mainly that the empirical success of quantum mechanics calls for a revolution in logic itself. This view is associated with the demand for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
To be more specific, the formal apparatus of quantum mechanics reduces to a generalization of classical probability in which the role played by a Boolean algebra of events in the latter is taken over by the "quantum logic" of projection operators on a Hilbert space.
A simple illustration of the application of projection operators (for 'Good' and 'evil') is shown in the diagram. The object is to show that, contrary to classical or Boolean laws, the two are not mutually exclusive but can co-exist. In other words, the two form a non-Boolean, non-distributive – ortho-complementary lattice.
For example, two years ago in the AARP Religious forum, I had patiently gone through the accepted modus operandi pertaining to scientific epistemological expostulation. At some juncture, the evangelical reo4 him then asked:
"Who made these rules? Have these rules been validated?"
I replied again, patiently:
These are not "rules" as such but the criteria of the normative scientific community - as to what constitutes the description, analysis of objects of inquiry in any field of scientific study. As Henry Margenau notes, to a larger extent they can also be interpreted as the criteria for the general intelligent rationalist, motivated by principles that have been with us since the dawn of the Enlightenment.
reo then asked further:
"What if there is an "actual epistemology" which cannot be independently verified by others? Aren't there lots of things which "others" cannot verify for many different reasons? Who are the "others" whom you view to be valid verifiers?"
To which I responded:
If an epistemology (or claim of such) cannot be independently verified - then it likely doesn't exist other in a subjective template for the benefit of only a relative few biased proponents. As a naturalist example, let us take "cold fusion". In the 80s two researchers - Pons and Flesichmann, tried to assert the validity of "cold fusion" - e.g. that hydrogen fusion could occur at normal room temperature with water, etc.
The underlying new epistemology would have defeated the long held one that nuclear fusion can only occur at extremely high temperatures (> 10 million Celsius) - which allows for the ability of separate protons to penetrate the Coulomb repulsive barrier that inhibits like charges from coming too close. This would have marked a major milestone.
Alas, no one that attempted to duplicate their results was successful, Hence, NO independent verification. When enough details were provided for such duplication, the analyses showed that the excess heat evolved could be explained within the margin of experimental error.
Hence, the epistemology of cold fusion was shown to be invalid.
"Others" are those such as the scientists who falsified the claims of Pons and Flesichmann in the case of cold fusion. "Others" are mainly scientists who will conduct or try to , the independent tests. The field of these "others" will depend on the claim made. Hence, for "intelligent design" - the "others" will be evolutionary biologists who will test ID's claims - assuming they ever provide tests for falsification! As opposed to merely ruminating that such and such structure or organ suggests "design" and we are to sit up and take note.
and again, reo4 him:
"What if there is another paradigm or reality at work, in which some can validate and discern and others cannot? Why couldn't this view of reality also be at work? "
To wit, my reply:
Then the advocates of this bifurcated paradigm need to explain why some can validate it and others can't, and render this explanation as a scientifically testable hypothesis, not merely an aimless speculation. Again, the rubric at work is test, test, test. If this is too much, simply admit what you embrace is religious faith but no science, and all will be well.
And on and on and on.
As we see, the fundie (reo4him) never processes what has been said, he merely keeps popping out questions hoping to "catch" us (unbelievers) at the other end. In this way, the game never ends. Either the fundie must win by an easy "gotcha" trick question that has no answer, or he just keeps on popping out questions like Behemoth does baby demons!
Other evangelicals also keep the question gambit going, but one has to wonder if, at some point, the questions don't cross over into howlers. Consider the following question:
Q/Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes ? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can't that be God ?
Well, because "God" discommodes the algorithm! Consider, EITHER:
1) Everything has a cause OR
2) There is something that doesn't.
Thus, the "first Cause" gambit collapses since, if everything has a cause, then "God" must too. And - if Something doesn't have a cause - that something could as well be the physical universe, as God. Indeed, it is a superior cause since it requires no ad hoc addition of a external, or supernatural uncaused cause.
The person (fundie) who objects to this, must then answer the question: "Why cannot the physical universe be taken as the uncaused cause?"
Indeed, we already have the full mathematical basis for such an occurrence which has actually been published. . In his definitive paper, `Universe Before Planck Time - A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756, T. Padmanabhan shows how this can be done by treating conformal space-time as a quantum variable in de Sitter 4-space.
For those of us who grok it, therefore, the concept of acausal determinism along with the language of mathematics to describe it for the onset of the cosmos - is all we need. Just because 99.99% don't buy or comprehend it, doesn't mean we're going to 'pack it in' and buy into the childhood fable version of the cosmos' origin, predicated on an outdated causality
Another howler:
Q.If atheism is true: The universe has laws. These laws cannot be violated.
This is a "howler" because in other contexts (e.g. biblical miracles) the fundie is perfectly happy to allow all the laws in the world or universe to be violated....at will!
Violate the conservation of mass-energy? No problemo! Just let a guy take a few loaves and fishes and multiply them to the masses.
Violate the local law of gravity? No problemo! Just let the same artificial confection "walk on water".
Violate the law of entropy? No problemo! Just let the same invented guy bring back a guy that's been a corpse three days.
The fact is the fundies cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they demand natural laws that can't be violated, they must demand it for themselves as well! That means they must eschew the claim of any "miracle" once it violates an established law of nature.
Lastly:
Q. If the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily ? If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute ? Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs
First, the person here confuses "laws of logic" with absolute laws. In fact, because one can have more than one form of logical apparatus (e.g. Boolean vs. quantum logic) then clearly there can't be one uniform set of logical rules or laws!
In the case of Boolean logic, one employs the binary responses and methods of the computer - for example in logic gates that process 1s and os. Yes = 1, no = 0.
Consider, in classical (Boolean) logic two statements p and q, are contrary if they cannot both hold, i.e. if:
~ (p / q)
Two statements: p, q are contradictory, if:
[p -> (~ q) ] / [ (~p) -> q]
and so on.
However, the fundaments of quantum mechanics (validated by experiment, e.g. the Aspect experiment) diverge from this. Quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic. More specifically, in quantum mechanics each probability-bearing proposition of the form "the value of physical quantity A lies in the range B" is represented by a projection operator on a Hilbert space H.
These form a non-Boolean, non-distributive – ortho-complementary lattice. Quantum-mechanical states correspond exactly to probability measures (suitably defined) on this lattice. What are we to make of this? Mainly that the empirical success of quantum mechanics calls for a revolution in logic itself. This view is associated with the demand for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
To be more specific, the formal apparatus of quantum mechanics reduces to a generalization of classical probability in which the role played by a Boolean algebra of events in the latter is taken over by the "quantum logic" of projection operators on a Hilbert space.
A simple illustration of the application of projection operators (for 'Good' and 'evil') is shown in the diagram. The object is to show that, contrary to classical or Boolean laws, the two are not mutually exclusive but can co-exist. In other words, the two form a non-Boolean, non-distributive – ortho-complementary lattice.
From the diagram shown:│[Evil][Good]│^2 = 1, or
P = │Evil!Good│^2 = 1
or, the total probability amplitude that a consciousness is possessed of both 'Evil' and 'Good', in some combination, must be 1. Can never be 0 (pure good)
Which shows that logic rule caegories are indeed human constructs! They can't be anything but because human mathematics developed the probability basis for ortho-complementary lattices!
Of course, I've no doubt the religious fundies will never grasp this in a million years, or a hundred million!
or, the total probability amplitude that a consciousness is possessed of both 'Evil' and 'Good', in some combination, must be 1. Can never be 0 (pure good)
Which shows that logic rule caegories are indeed human constructs! They can't be anything but because human mathematics developed the probability basis for ortho-complementary lattices!
Of course, I've no doubt the religious fundies will never grasp this in a million years, or a hundred million!
No comments:
Post a Comment