Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

I keep having to remind myself that science is self-correcting …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I have often been wearied by legends in their own lunchroom huffing that science differs from other endeavours because it is “self-correcting.”

To which I reply: Aw come off it, fellas. Any system that does not go extinct is self-correcting – after it collapses on its hind end. This is true of governments, businesses, churches, and not-for-profit organizations. I’ve seen enough of life to know.

Here’s a classic: At The Scientist’s NewsBlog, Bob Grant reveals (May 7, 2009) that

Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.

Elsevier is conducting an “internal review” of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the “journal” was corporate sponsored

[ … ]

The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that amounted to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-source reviews, most of which presented data favorable to Merck’s products. The Scientist obtained two 2003 issues of the journal — which bore the imprint of Elsevier’s Excerpta Medica — neither of which carried a statement obviating Merck’s sponsorship of the publication.

The linked related stories and comments are most illuminating, and bear out my critique of “peer review” here. Let’s just say that peer review started out as a good idea, but …

(Note: There is no paywall, but you may need to register to view the story, .)

Also, today at Colliding Universes

Neutrinos: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory does the sun’s bookkeeping

Origin of life: The live cat vs. the dead cat

Cosmology: Wow. It takes guts to wage war with Stephen Hawking … he appeared in Star Trek

Universe: Arguments against flatness (plus exposing sloppy science writing)

Origin of life: Latest scenario gives RNA world a boost

Colliding Universes is my blog on competing theories about our universe.

Comments
Rob: Cf Above at 330, on the relevant causal factors:
[citing] StephenB: To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. [Rob objects:] I’m curious whether this is your long-standing position, or if you thought it up recently. Have you always conflated causes with conditions? The occurrence of any event is contingent on the necessary condition that nothing prevent it from occurring. But it seems a little strange to say that this condition caused the event.
I point out, again, that causal conditions or factors come in the necessary for and sufficient for flavours. And the fire example shows them at work; there we see individually necessary factors that combined give a sufficient cause. As to the probability of decay of a C-14 atom, the point is that unless it exists and has in it the cluster of nucleons that are unstable, it will not have the probability of decay that gives rise to the well-known half-life. That there is a definite, measurable probability shows that there is an underlying definite driving set of conditions, but of course since this is well within Heisenberg and Einstein's limits, we will not be able to directly observe. (Cf "my" stirring a black box with a stick that sticks out illustration -- actually, M N McMorris' lecture illustration from way back.) SB is quite correct to say that only if there are no necessary and no sufficient conditions can we attribute the event in question to uncaused process. Unfortunately, it is common to suggest that since the quantum events in RA are stochastic on our observation they happen without a cause. That makes no more sense than to say that just because the uppermost face of a fair die is stochastic, it has no cause. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Next, I see that Rob is unwilling to accept that there are necessary — as opposed to sufficient — causal factors.
I don't see that. Can you provide a quote? Regarding the "no uncaused events" idea, events can be defined with necessary conditions included as givens, leaving a non-deterministic remainder. For instance, we can define event E as: This particular Carbon-14 atom decays within the next 5700 years, given the laws of physics, and given that this atom was just created. P(E) is .5, that probability being unconditional since the conditions are given, according to the definition of E. So if E occurs, is it caused?R0b
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
beelzebub:
Does that sound like the word of God to you, or more like the superstitious belief of a primitive, scientifically illiterate desert tribe?
'How something sounds' can be a useful test, particularly if we possess a wealth of relevant knowledge and experience. But it's hardly reliable, as it provides purely subjective judgments filtered through our opinions and prejudices. It's a great way to pick music we like, but a lousy way to measure reality. (The thought crossed my mind that I first appreciated this site because it primarily addressed science and not religion. And now I find myself debating the Bible. I'm not complaining - who do I have to blame?)ScottAndrews
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Mr Fox: The above is sufficiently explanatory on what it addresses (which is not a discussion of "first causes" but of quantum mechanics and cause): oxidiser, fuel and heat are each necessary and are jointly sufficient for a fire. So, we see that necessary and sufficient causal factors are relevant in the real world and may profitably be distinguished. Thus also, once we identify that necessary factors are manifest in Q-mech situations, it is not proper to say that these phenomena are not caused. In particular, you will see a discussion on the nature of space as a real, measurable, energy-rich entity; and on the implications of Einstein's energy-time uncertainty. There may be other unobserved or even unobservable factors; but these are not going to transform Q-mech phenomena into causeless ones, once we already see that there are necessary causal factors at work. (Thus Herb needs not be intimidated by appeals to Q-mech, and Diff and BZ need to stop makingthe appeal to Q mech as though that does away with the reality of cause-effect bonds: "that which has a beginning has a cause," and "from nothing, nothing comes.") Next time, please avoid strawman misrepresentations. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Rob: Go pull Copi's Logic, and look up cause in it. You will see a discussion of the fire example. Necessary factors are causes. (And that the Celtics must exist and Boston must exist for the Boston Celtics to be in the Basketball leagues, is no stranger than that you must have fuel, oxidiser and heat to have a fire.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
I suggest he then reflects on the fire triangle, where by oxidiser, fuel and heat are each necessary and jointly sufficient for a fire.
I hesitate to ask, Mr. M., but what has the concept of the fire triangle (well-known to anyone in firefighting, health and safety etc) to do with the theological argument of first causes?Alan Fox
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Are you suggesting that these conditions are not causes?
No, I didn't say that no conditions are causes. I'm suggesting that it's a little strange to say that Russia caused the Celtics to fall out of the 2009 playoffs by not nuking Boston 20 years ago. But "cause" is a not a technical term, so you can use it any way you wish, as long as we understand your usage. If your usage dictates that any necessary or sufficient condition is a cause, then I can go with that.R0b
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Folks: Couple points -- and thanks, Stephen. First, I forgot to mention frustrated TIR, which is relvant to tunnelling. In effect, when angles of incidence are beyond critical, light undergoes total internal reflection instead of being bent and passing through from a more to a less dense optical medium. BUT, a "tunnelling effect" happens, where there is an exponentially decaying amplitude function -- an evanescent wave -- that projects beyond the border of the first medium, so that if another block of glass, say, is brought close [up to several wavelengths) but not actually touching, there is transmission instead of reflection: tunnelling through the "forbidden zone." So, tunnelling is clearly a real, observable phenomenon. Next, I see that Rob is unwilling to accept that there are necessary -- as opposed to sufficient -- causal factors. I therefore suggest the does the experiment of going to a gas stove and trying to light it from a fire-lighter while keeping the gas off. then, try to turn it on with the fuel on. (Fuel is a necessary but not sufficient causal factor for a fire.) Having done that, I suggest he then reflects on the fire triangle, where by oxidiser, fuel and heat are each necessary and jointly sufficient for a fire. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
---Rob: "I’m curious whether this is your long-standing position, or if you thought it up recently. Have you always conflated causes with conditions?" Conflated? If the conditions for freezing water are such that the temperature must be O degrees centrigrade, then when those conditions are present, water will freeze. When those conditions are not present or when they change, that is, when the temperature rises above zero, water will unfreeze. Are you suggesting that these conditions are not causes?StephenB
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
----Diffaxial: "By “physically necessary condition” you are, one would assume, referring to the characteristics of the quantum vacuum. Given that quantum vacuum is present throughout spacetime (due to Heisenberg uncertainty regarding energy states) and displays characteristics that are contingent on NO other facts, to cite its characteristics as a “necessary condition” of the emergence of a pair of virtual particles is rather like the FAA concluding that the cause of a particular air crash was “the laws of physics.” Rather than reinvent the wheel in inferior fashion, I will simply refer you to kairosfocus' posts at 325 and 326. Unlike most scientists, he understands the philosophical principles involved and can explain their relationship to the details of physics in the language of physics. Beyond that, I will try to state the obvious in yet another way. If the principles of right reason were negotiable in any way, we could not even have arrived at our present understanding of quantum mechanics. For that matter, we could not have even made the transition from Newton’s conception of physics to Einstein’s conception of physics. We can only make corrections based on logical principles that are, themselves, immune from correction. If reason is correctable, it cannot be used to correct. In other words, Einstein can correct Newton only on the condition that the law of non-contradiction [A] applies to the real world and [B] is non-negotiable. If a thing can both be and not be at the same time and under the same formal circumstances, then Newton’s conception of physics and Einstein’s conception of physics can both be true at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. Under those conditions, there is no potential for correction and science cannot correct itself. Only on condition that the corrective principles of right reason are, themselves, immune from correction, can they correct. Similarly, only because first principles are unchangeable and are NEVER provisional, can they illuminate science’s findings, which are ALWAYS provisional. Only the unchangeable can illuminate the changeable. That is not MY truth, that is simply the way things are.StephenB
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
beelzebub, mauka, ribczynski, kieths, I have to wonder why you are so fixated on commenting, under your various sock-puppets, when you are so disdainful of the programme here. I can't understand why someone would be so interested in something that they thought so awful and wrong. It would be like eating something that you couldn't stomach, everyday, over and over. Now run on home to your AtBC buddy's, find some comfort in clinging to the legs of daddy Dawkins, and cry about how you're so mistreated here. :) I'm sure I'll see you soon under another masochistic sock-puppet.Clive Hayden
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
StephenB:
To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever.
I'm curious whether this is your long-standing position, or if you thought it up recently. Have you always conflated causes with conditions? The occurrence of any event is contingent on the necessary condition that nothing prevent it from occurring. But it seems a little strange to say that this condition caused the event.R0b
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Sorry, kairosfocus' posts are @325 and 326, not @323 and 324.StephenB
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @323 and 324, excellent! For anyone who wants to understand the ways in which all the major themes on this thread are related, I highly recommend these posts. KF is often accused of writing unnecessarily long posts, but anyone who takes the time to read them will find that he doesn't waste words. Further, he always provides scientific facts in the context of a comparative world view analysis, something very few scientists are willing or even able to do. On the contrary, most scientists are clueless about the metaphysical foundations of the very discipline that they practice. Thus, it is refreshing to read someone who can put it all together, details and all. All these complaints about KF's "wordiness" constitute little more than "sour grapes" from those who have little to say in the form of rebuttal and are too closed minded to consider relevant facts in the context of the "big picture."StephenB
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
PPS: "Absolutely true": the truth, the whole relevant truth and nothing but the whole relevant truth.kairosfocus
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
4 --> We thus see that causal bonds may be of: (a) necessity, (b) sufficiency [including "overkill"], and (c) necessity + sufficiency of circumstances or factors associated with an event or object, etc. 5 --> Going back to the classical analysis: (i) there are material factors that must be present or there is no "stuff" for things to happen to, (ii) once sufficient actuating factors are present, we will have initiation or continuation, (iii) if there is agency involved, there may be a goal and there may be an overarching conceptual category that he event etc conforms to. (I am not assuming that agency is involved, note the IF.) 6 --> Now, SB correctly points out the necessary-sufficiency distinction, and highlights that if we identify necessary factors only for a given situation, we may not spot the specific actuating trigger factors. (And indeed, that is one way o get a "chance" or random outcome: set up a situation where initial and intervening circumstances and factors vary and/or are hard to trace or correlate the one to the other, e.g. in tossing a die or in using a phone book as a random number table.) 7 --> Now, in nuclei of atoms, we have electrostatic repulsions between protons [p], which are quite high because of the small separations. But, the strong nuclear force sticks nucleons together [think of it as swapping mesons around between nucleons while still having a grip on the opposite ends of the tiny "balls" . . . aka exchange particle forces], and with a suitable dilution of neutrons [n], we get stable atoms . . . there is a well-known "belt of stability." 8 --> For some atoms, emitting alpha particles = 2 p + 2 n [a helium-4 nucleus] will dilute the proton repulsions, as the number of neutrons is much in excess of the number of protons for heavy elements. 9 --> In effect, we see a potential well, with a fairly thin wall to the outside. For a "classical" particle, the well would have to be climbed, then the escaping particle would be able to run down the outside wall, and get away; releasing energy relative to the metastable state of the bound-together nucleus. (if you climb over the parapet wall and fall off eh roof, you are heading for a crash when the head meets the ground far below.] 10 --> However, that requires a lot of "climbing" energy, but in fact in Q-mech we see particles that have lower than the wall-climbing energy escaping. We call this "Q-mech tunnelling." 11 --> What is happening -- on a simple analogy -- is that the wall is a bit "porous," and there is a finite probability that without climbing the wall, some particles may escape, "at random," but in a process with a definite probability distribution leading to a definite half-life for a reasonable mass of the radioactive material. (The energy will still be released by the tunnelling particle; only, the amount is too weak to climb the well. Also, the fact of a definite probability distribution implies that there are underlying -- unobserved, and at Q-mech level perhaps unobservable -- factors that set it and its parameters up. BTW, binding energy is what appears in the mass-defect of a nucleus relative to the arithmetically added up masses of its constituent particles. Down that road lies the source of nuclear energy by fission.) 12 --> Is this a "causeless" effect? 13 --> Providing a good answer to that crucially depends on understanding what "cause" means. And, once we note with SB that NECESSARY conditions are distinct from SUFFICIENT ones, the answer becomes obvious at once: there are many necessary conditions for alpha decay to occur, and we are looking at the overall outcome without knowledge of the specifically SUFFICIENT ones that would "guarantee" that a given alpha particle would escape a given atom at a given time. 14 --> More interestingly, on energy-time uncertainty [Einstein] and position-momentum uncertainty [Heisenberg], we know that WE cannot observe closely enough to know all the factors we would like to know. (In effect, think about a very light ball in a black box that you have to prod with a stick that sticks out, to "feel" where it is -- oops, you bounced it so you only know where it more or less WAS, and also have no good way to know how fast it WAS moving . . . ) 15 --> So, we have strong reason to believe that we are not going to OBSERVE the causally sufficient conditions for such Q-mech level outcomes. 16 --> But, that does not prevent us from observing many causally necessary conditions; e.g. the existence of an unstable nucleus because of the balance between long range repulsions and short range attractions as we move to the upper end of the periodic table, the dilution of p's by excess n's so that loss of a matched pair: 2p + 2n will tend to dilute repulsions while leaving the short range "contact force" that sticks nucleons together intact (increasing stability), the "porosity" of potential walls at that scale [which is linked to energy-time uncertainty -- as long as the time is "short enough," you can get away with large energy spikes . . . dE* dt >/~ h/2 pi ] etc. 17 --> Even, that space itself exists and has many definite, measurable properties that constrain what happens in space-time; e.g c as the "cosmic speed limit." And, indeed, c is classically defined by the electrical and magnetic properties of free space, so that we can measure the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space and deduce the value of free-space electromagnetic waves. (That is how Maxwell ralised that his electromagnetic waves were related to light.) Not to mention, space has dimensions -- length, breadth, height, etc and exists in time etc. So, even, in classical physics, space or the vacuum, is not to be seen as "nothing"! 18 --> Then, when we bring up quantum/vacuum fluctuations we may note:
Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation. The Uncertainty Principle states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum and energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval. The uncertainty principle . . . [was extended by Einstein (during a major intellectual duel at the Copenhagen conference . . . ) to include] "uncertainty in time" and "uncertainty in energy" (including the rest mass energy mc^2). When the mass is very large (such as a macroscopic object), the uncertainties and thus the quantum effect become very small, classical physics is applicable once more. In classical physics (applicable to macroscopic phenomena), empty space-time is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum mechanics (applicable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles). It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited, that is, no particles are present. Hence, it is the "ground state" of the quantum field, the state of minimum energy. The picture on the left illustrates the kind of activities going on in a quantum vacuum. It shows particle pairs appear, lead a brief existence, and then annihilate one another in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle.
19 --> In short, there is a lot of cause-effect going on around quantum phenomena (including vacuum fluctuation phenomena . . . note all that stuff on quantum fields and energy levels and excitation states . . . ), just we often fail to notice that we are dealing with necessary but not in themselves sufficient factors, multiplied by uncertainty issues as fundamental constraints on our ability to observe. 20 --> Directly, this undercuts DA's attempted rebuttal at 317: a q-theory "observationally empty" space is replete with energy that becomes a necessary underlying condition for fluctuations. This is NOT at all like saying that the bare statements of laws is causing effects, but observing instead that space itself has properties and available energy states to trigger effects. (Compare, on cosmology, the cosmological constant that leads to a yeast-bubbler term that makes space itself expand [which accounts for how superluminal inflation is possible . . .], leading to the -- observed -- red shift etc effects of an expanding universe.) 21 --> This discussion by Puthoff here is also helpful, note esp the remarks on the Casimir effect which is of course an observed phenomenon, hence th term "effect." That is, looking at he E-M field, we can imagine it settling to its zero point, and having tiny possible fluctuations in its various modes, but then when modes begin to add up across possible directions and frequencies, the total resulting energy per unit volume is appreciable, indeed comparable to nuclear energy densities - hence we have a ready source for subatomic particles to pop up within the Einstein energy-time uncertainty constraint. (Mystery of "something from nothing" now vanishes: poof!) 22 --> So, Q-mech as such is not so much undermining the LOGIC of causality, as showing and underscoring the limits of our ability to apply it in relevant empirical situations. ++++++++++++ In short, SB is right. GEM of TKI PS: On the problem of evil, it would be useful to look at Plantinga's free Will Defense, starting perhaps with a short, almost simplistic, summary here.kairosfocus
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
Folks: VJT at 300 -- excellent. I loved this "spin" on the principle of falsifiability/ testability as a criterion of epistemic virtue of scientific theories:
. . . a scientific theory which is not tied to any solid claims that it is willing to stake its reputation on, runs the risk of being too slippery to falsify. A theory needs its central dogmas; otherwise it is not a proper theory at all. . . . . both theories have become virtually immune to falsification, except by bizarre lines of evidence. Sure, the sudden discovery of fossil rabbits in pre-Cambrian strata around the world (J. S. Haldane), or for that matter the remains of a crashed UFO with an alien blueprint for every life-form on Earth today, would overthrow Darwinism. And sure, a sudden drop of 5 degrees in global temperatures would suffice to overturn the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. What worries me about both neo-Darwinian evolution and anthropogenic global warming is that both hypotheses are far too flexible, in their ability to accommodate countervailing evidence . . . . And what about religion? You complain that too many dogmas are unfalsifiable. Nonsense. I’m sure I could think of about 50 ways in which Christianity could conceivably be falsified by scientists, philosophers and/or historians over the next 100 years, and probably more if I tried. So far, however, Christianity has done remarkably well . . . . [T]he point I wanted to get across was: dogmas are not always a bad thing. They can be stultifying; but they can also be intellectually fruitful, in their own way. The proposed elimination of all dogmas is a drastic step, fraught with peril; if implemented, it would render clear thinking impossible.
In short, dogmas -- AmhDict: "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true" -- provide points where a worldview or theory "chooses a hill to die on," exposing it to challenges that it cannot retreat from and remain true to what it is in its core. So, to object to dogmas as such in the case of the Judaeo-Christian tradition or the "glorified common-sense" [Should I say Thomas Reidian?] view of reasoning and knowledge, while holding out empirico-logical testability and falsifiability as key epistemic virtues of science that make it "superior" is selectively hyperspkeptical. Delicious irony! Now also, overnight, I was thinking I needed to go to alpha decay and frustrated total internal reflection as illustrative of causality and Q-mech. The exchange betwen SB and DA confirms this. But first, a further note to Herb on "provisionality." (This will also answer to BZ's objections.) In effect, H, look at how you are speaking, e.g.:
I do provisionally accept the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity as being useful, but again I can’t say they are universally true. I’ve read that some parts of QM are inconsistent with some of these laws, for example, so I think there’s reason to doubt them.
In steps: ________________ a --> Notice, first, how Q-mech (nice, complex "blind 'em with science" stuff, that . . . ) is a root factor in the confusion. More on this, below . . strictly 101 level, folks but good enough to give you "one eye in the land of the blind." b --> Zoom in on what H is saying: "I do provisionally accept . . . " That is, he is able to recognise that he is in a definite state of affairs, that of "provisionally accepting X." c --> So, even in trying to deny assertions of states of affairs beyond mere provisional perceptions and views, he is at the very next level asserting that certain states of affairs are so . . . and, thus, as opposed to not being so. d --> So, he is in a state of inconsistency at the second level of his argument: asserting what IS so, not just what may be/seems to be so. (And, even if he tried to rework this to be a perception, he would face an infinite regress or else assuming what he is loathe to outright accept: that he is able to say or see at least some things that are indeed so.) e --> That kind of direct self-refutation or infinite regress challenge warn us of what is going on: the attempt to deny the knowability of truth, or the reality of truth, ends in self-referential incoherence. f --> In short, something is trying to tell you, H, that truth is real, and that at least sometimes you see it -- and may even say it -- accurately. (Whether or not that is fashionable in a radical relativist world. But then you can have fun pointing out the incoherences that result from saying what boils down to "It is true that there is no truth," and "we know that we cannot know the truth even if it exists." In both cases, in teh end, one assumes or implies what one tries to deny.) g --> For even more telling instance, following Josiah Royce, try out: error exists. (Let's call it E for short.) Almost all of us would immediately assent per our experience of the world as minded creatures [even relativists are trying to "correct" those "ignorant absolutists" out there . . . ], but more lurks here than is obvious. i --> That is, if we try to deny this claim, i.e. assert NOT-E, then we see that we are immediately implying that E is . . . an error. j --> So, to try to deny E only ends up showing that it is correct. E is UNDENIABLY TRUE, once we consult our experience and understanding of the world as minded creatures. (And BTW, provisionality, if it is to have serious teeth as "my beliefs and views are correctible and so changeable on evidence and reason," has to have guidestar principles that allow us to recognise error, i.e. some things have to be fixed -- core undeniable (on pain of absurdity) principles of right reason -- if we are to navigate on the sea of knowledge. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of arbitrariness on what I choose to accept or reject, leading of course to selective hyperskepticism. Alas, some are not even embarrassed by being seen as exerting intellectual double-standards. but, we can see that for ourselves and avoid their relativistic pitfalls.) k --> Other things follow from a case of knowable, undeniable truth: Truth exists (as what we may be in error about), and has this distinction -- it accurately describes reality: "that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not." [Aristotle, Metaphysics 1011b.] In some cases, truth is knowable in the strong sense: warranted, true belief -- not just "currently credibly true belief." l --> Further to this, truth is distinct from its opposite, error: that which is true is not an error, and that which is an error is not true -- it says of what is not, that it is, and of what is, that it is not. m --> those who try to deny this, end up immediately or at length affirming or exemplifying what they try to deny by how they speak. that tis, they are plainly in error and cannot consistently live by their declared principles; a strong sign of fundamental error: incoherence in statement and in matching up against the facts of reality. _____________ So, H, do not let yourself be intimidated! And, SB at 302 raises a very key point on the difference between the roots of thinking (which must be there for us to analyse observations and compare alternative explanations, picking which we find to be currently best on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance) and the observations, descriptions, explanations and predictions (or, retrodictions . . . ) of science:
The metaphysical foundations for science have nothing to do with “verbal descriptions” and “macroscopic objects.” They are the self-evident truths through which verbal descriptions and macroscopic events are understood. You are conflating metaphysical truths with physical realities that can be observed and measured, an error, by the way, that stems from rejecting the metaphysical foundations themselves . . . . If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event [I add: relative to our state of understanding , ability to predict and ability to observe] is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused. In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event. So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing.
Correct. Bearing this in mind, let us now turn to Q-mech and alpha decay and cause-effect bonds; starting with a simpler case to illustrate key concepts, a fire: ++++++++++++ 1 --> As the "fire triangle" teaches us, when we have a fire, we must have (i) fuel (which is of course a substance capable under the circumstances of the heat-evolving chain reaction we call burning), (ii) heat and (iii) oxidiser (often, air . . . 21% O2). [Fires can burn in other media; indeed, in some cases already burning metals can dissociate water and burn on the released oxygen!] 2 --> Look closer: each of these is necessary, i.e. should any one be removed, the fire will cease. 3 --> They are jointly sufficient (esp. when we note on the nature of a fuel as observed . . . Halons break up the chain reaction "under the circumstances"); i.e. so soon as and so long as all three factors are present, we will have a fire. ("Each is necessary and they are jointly sufficient." {Heat + Oxidiser + Fuel} is necessary and sufficient for {Fire}.) [ . . . ]kairosfocus
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews:
You’ve ruled out the possibility of metaphorical speech - “as a burnt offering” - even where it’s overwhelmingly supported by the context and spoken by a man you didn’t know in a language you don’t speak and whose customs are unknown to you.
Scott, If there were such an easy explanation, don't you think biblical scholars would have jumped on it? For most of history, biblical scholars have been believers who, like you, would much prefer to believe that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter. The fact that so many people have agonized over this (including Ambrose and Chrysostom, as vjtorley pointed out) should give you a clue that the easy way out is not available. If it were, they would have taken it already. As Gordon Wenham explains:
Then, inspired by the Spirit of the Lord, he rallies the tribe of Manasseh and the Gileadites to enlist in his army. Then he makes a vow to the Lord that if he is successful in battle, 'whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me...I will offer him up for a burnt offering' (11:31). This translation reflects the consensus of most commentators ancient and modern that Jephthah was promising human sacrifice if he was victorious.
You then accuse me of not having read the book I'm criticizing:
My guess - in a book you haven’t read.
You're mistaken. I'm an ex-Christian who has read the entire Bible multiple times (both before and after my deconversion), and parts of it (particularly the Gospels) many more times than that. I told my story on on another thread, so I won't repeat it here. Scott, the story of Jephthah is far from being the only problematic one in the Bible. It's just the tip of the iceberg. Do you think that refraction didn't occur before Noah's flood, after which God placed the rainbow in the sky? The Bible says that God did this not to signal his promise to humans but to remind himself of his promise. Do you believe that God is forgetful, and that he needs reminders? Is the following story plausible to you?
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel — because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth. Genesis 11, NIV
Do you believe that God was worried that "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them"? Do you believe that there was only one language at that point, and many thereafter? Do you think the following is a good test for adultery?
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt. " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away" " 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." "'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. Numbers 5, NIV
Does that sound like the word of God to you, or more like the superstitious belief of a primitive, scientifically illiterate desert tribe? I could go on and on. It is baffling to me that anyone would mistake the Bible for the word of an omniscient, omnipotent God.beelzebub
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
Sorry about the indents on my previous post (#321). Unfortunately the computer I was working on wouldn't let me preview my input!vjtorley
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Beelzebub Thank you for your post (#291). The argument from evil has reached an interesting point on this thread. For you have put forward the bold claim that at least one kind of evil in the world disproves the existence of an infinite, omnibenevolent God. Regarding the question of why God didn't intervene to stop Jephthah sacrificing his daughter, I wrote (#284):
However, if you wish to argue that God was bound to intervene here, Beelzebub, then logic compels you to argue the same for every other case where human lives were lost as a result of people’s misguided religious beliefs.
You responded (#291):
I agree, and I do make that argument. God has a lot to answer for, assuming that he exists.
So now we've moved beyond Jephthah, to the general question: is the occurrence of evils committed by well-intentioned people under the sway of some religious error, incompatible with the existence of a good, all-powerful God? You maintain that it is; I would argue that it is not. In my previous post (#284), I suggested one reason why God was not bound to intervene on each and every occasion to prevent these evils: doing so would require a "voice from above" - in other words, an extraordinary act of Divine intervention. I wrote:
I can only suppose that Divine intervention, if practiced regularly, would prove too messy - too Deus ex machina.
You responded:
He must be an extremely fastidious God to value tidiness over morality.
After thinking about your comment, I will concede that the massive number of interventions required does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient reason for God not to intervene to prevent eveils caused by religious errors. What I would suggest is that perhaps the Fall itself made it impossible for God to intervene. Only, in those rare cases where God personally commanded someone to perform an action would He then be able to follow through and correct any misinterpretation by that person of the Divine command. Thus in the case of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, God was indeed obliged at the last moment to send an angel to say, "Stop!" (Actually, I'm inclined to think that Abraham trusted all along that something like this would happen at the last moment, which is why he complied with God's wishes.) But in Jephthah's case, the sacrifice was not commanded by God, and here I would argue that God was powerless to intervene. Ditto for the Salem witch trials, the slaughter caused by the Crusades, and so on. Why? The short answer is: because of the very radical nature of the Fall. I'd like you to try a little thought experiment: imagine you're Adam - an intelligent hominid, endowed with a rational soul, and certainly capable of understanding abstract concepts such as "God," "immortality," "obey," and "happy," as well as recursive notions like "you and all your descendants." You're the head of your clan. You're also the first member of your tribe to cross the mental Rubicon separating us from animals. All the other members of the tribe look up to you: you're their appointed spokesperson, and whatever important decisions you make, they will acquiesce in. You're on talking terms with God. He's even promised you immortality and never-ending happiness, if you choose to obey Him. There's just one catch - if you do that, it means acknowledging that God's number 1, and you're number 2. But something gnawing at you inside your head makes you doubt the wisdom of this proposal. You think to yourself: even if the terms and conditions are very favorable, do I really want to play second fiddle to anyone forever? Do I really want to submit to someone else's will, for all eternity? For that matter, why should I trust this Being, anyway? So when your time of testing comes, you boldly and defiantly declare, as Lucifer did billions of years earlier: "No! I will not serve!" When you made your choice, there was a heavy responsibility resting on your shoulders. God had already told you that whatever choice you make would bind the rest of the human race, and that if you rejected Him, you would be shutting off the voice of God, not only for yourself, but also for every other member of the human race. God could still, if He chose, intervene on special occasions, but when you chose to reject Him, you and all your descendants forfeited the right to demand His intervention. For all practical intents and purposes, the heavens would be silent from now on. God was off the air. You had no problems convincing your clan that you had made the right choice. Humanity's Independence Day, you called it. The heavens might be darker now; but everyone was now free from the continual demands of a nagging Deity. You had freed them. The voice of God was gone; from now on, there would be just one voice in the land: the human voice. Death and pain ensued; but you had expected that. What you hadn't expected, however, was confusion. People could no longer agree on the right thing to do, and fighting broke out on a regular basis. Shocked, you tried to restore some sort of order by re-instituting some sort of religion. You built altars. But you soon discovered that people couldn't agree on what Deity to worship, let alone what the Deity's commands were. All sorts of bizarre rituals started to appear; and humanity descended into a moral and religious cacophony. One of your own sons then murdered his brother because of some religious squabble they had, about the right way to offer up sacrifices to the Deity. Now, as the full weight of what you have done hits you, you repent of your proud choice to defy God. Now, Beelzebub, let's take a step back from this scenario. Were God's original terms and conditions unreasonable? Was He being grossly unfair to Adam's descendants? I don't think so. The human race is one. There is a deep bond of brotherhood uniting all of us. We're all in this together. The Earth is not our eternal home; it's a waystation. However, it's where we were all born, and it's the only home we know. It's where we all live, for the time being. Either people living on Earth are on talking terms with God or they're not. You can't have a human race, half of whose members talk to God "face to face" and enjoy perfect bliss on Earth, while the other half are cut off from God and wallow in death and misery on the same Earth. That wouldn't be one human race any more; that would be two races. So I would say: necessarily, Adam had a very fateful choice to make. Necessarily, whatever he chose would bind him and all his descendants. Once Adam defiantly rebuffed God, God had no choice but to reply, "Well, if you want me to go, then I will. Your race will have to live with the consequences." But even these considerations do not let God entirely off the hook. After all, God created Satan, who has wreaked havoc in the natural world, as well as being responsible for many moral evils - including the origination of the multitude of religious errors which have beset the human race, such as the vile notion that God is pleased by human sacrifice. Why did God create such a nefarious fiend in the first place, if He knew what Satan was going to do? I suppose this is what you had in mind when you wrote above (#291) that:
...God knew before he created Satan that all of this would happen. He created Satan nevertheless, which makes him responsible for the consequences.
Two comments. First, just as Adam had his "sphere of responsibility" as leader of the human race, so too Satan had his own little "sphere of influence," as an intelligent being responsible for implementing God's plans in one sector of the cosmos, in a way befitting a creative agent. That sector is, of course, our Earth. For God to curtail Satan's creative freedom after making him would be tantamount to a violation of the terms and conditions under which he was originally created - and thus a breach of contract on God's part. There will come a time, of course, when Satan will be chained up forever - but by that time, the Earth as we know it will have passed away. Second, you seem to envisage Satan as one of many possible angels whom God might have created, and you seem to then argue that an omniscient Deity should have been able to "pre-select" the good ones and refuse to create the bad ones. But that argument rests on a misconception. Another contributor, Seversky (whose last comment on a previous thread I stumbled upon only this morning), had the same misconception in mind when he wrote here at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-dawkins-still-have-any-connection-to-science/comment-page-1/#comment-302797 :
If God creates or designs as we do then He forms a mental model of the intended creation before giving it physical form. An omniscient God would presumably be aware of the complete potential future ‘history’ of any creation when that ‘model’ is complete and before it is ‘materialized’.
That objection works perfectly well if the behavior of the entity you are creating is deterministic. Libertarian agents are, however, not deterministic: their bahvior cannot be predicted by a set of rules or principles, however complex. Satan is a libertarian agent. What I am suggesting is that once God decides to create Satan, God knows everything Satan will do, because God knows what will happen at any time in the universe. However, God cannot know what a hypothetical (uncreated) libertarian agent would do, if it were created. For that kind of counterfactual knowledge presupposes that for any situation X that the agent might find itself in, God knows what it would do (Y) if it were in that situation - which in turn means that the agent's behavior can be described by a system of deterministic rules, which is contrary to our original supposition that the agent has libertarian free will. Not even an omniscient Being can know the unknowable. Another problem I have with Seversky's "mental model" objection is that it assumes that imaginary particulars exist "out there," like Pegasus, in a realm of Platonic Forms. Now, universals can certainly be said to exist in the mind of God (and in our own minds) as possibilities, even if they are never created. There might never be a single atom of element 126, but we can still form the general concept of this element, and talk meaningfully about its chemical properties. But we cannot meaningfully talk about possible atom X of element 126. Concepts are general; there can be no concepts of particulars. Professor David Oderberg explains why at further length in his paper, "Concepts, Dualism, and The Human Intellect," which you can read here. In other words, God has no concept of Satan as an individual prior to His act of creating him. (By "prior to" I mean ontologically prior, not temporally prior, of course.) God has the general concept of "cherubim" (the order of angels Satan belonged to, if Ezekiel 28 does indeed refer to him), but He has no concepts of any particular hypothetical cherubs that He could either choose to create or refrain from creating. In other words, God has to actually make Satan before He can know what Satan will do. Finally, regarding God's foreknowledge, I have to say I find the proposal by the atheist-agnostic philosopher David Misialowski that God is omnitemporal to be quite a sensible one. God is the sort of Being who is capable of occupying all points in space and time. Thus He can know the future without violating my libertarian free will - or Satan's. You can read Misialowki's arguments here at http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43827 , http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43828 and http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43829 . I have to say I find it funny that the best work being written on omniscience is by an atheist, but I'm grateful nonetheless. Anyway, here's God's creation scenario, as I envisage it: 1. At T-zero (13.73 billion years ago), God creates a universe. 2. God creates various angels, and assigns them spheres of responsibility, to assist Him with His creative work - put the finishing touches to the cosmic picture, as it were. Among these angels is a bright young thing named Lucifer. Lucifer's sphere is our Earth. Now here's where I'm not sure. EITHER: 3A. Satan and his minions have NO POWER to interfere with events occurring on this Earth, prior to the appearance of the first human beings. Thus: 4A. There are NO unpredictable contingencies in the course of evolution. At the very outset, God has the intention of intervening at a fixed point in time, and endowing some of these animals with rational souls (Adam, Eve and their little hominid clan, whom God has already chosen to create). 5A. Having created Lucifer, God (who can see all points of space and time - see the articles above by Misialowski) knows instantly that Lucifer will: (a) rebel; (b) bring down a third of the angels with him (Rev. 12); (c) tempt our first parents (Adam and Eve). Please go to step 6. OR: 3B. God gives each angel virtual carte blanche - aside from tampering with the laws of physics and chemistry, each angel can pretty much do what it likes with whatever sphere of influence it is assigned to. 4B. There are many contingencies in the course of life's evolution, because it is guided by intelligent agents who may be either benevolent or malevolent. God has the intention of intervening at a fixed point in time, and endowing some of these animals with rational souls (Adam, Eve and their little hominid clan, whom God has already chosen to create). 5B. Having created Lucifer, God (who can see all points of space and time - see the articles above by Misialowski) knows instantly that Lucifer will: (a) rebel; (b) bring down a third of the angels with him (Rev. 12); (c) wreak havoc with the biosphere, causing a great deal of animal suffering, as God's design for His creatures' nervous systems to shut down when subjected to extremely painful stimuli are thwarted by Satan; (d) wreak havoc with animal evolution, as Satan seeks to thwart God's plan to create intelligent animals. However, God in His Providence guarantees that the order of primates is preserved and that some of these primates evolve into hominids. At a certain point in time (but NOT one planned at the creation of the cosmos), God picks two hominids and ensouls them. At a subsequent time, He ensouls the rest of their clan. Step 6. Having created Adam and Eve's immaterial souls, God automatically knows that they will listen to Satan and reject God. God also knows that Satan, the father of lies, will corrupt the human race with all manner of pernicious notions, including child sacrifice. 7. God has however foreseen the possibility that the cosmic rebellion of Satan and the subsequent Fall of Adam and Eve might occur; if He had not foreseen at least the possibility of this occurring, He would be incompetent. His "Plan B" therefore goes into effect. God plans to send various messengers and finally, His own son, to redeem the human race. (I've already discussed the possibility of immortality for non-human animals in an earlier post (#296 and #298, which corrects a typo of mine), so I won't rehash it here.) Anyway, I hope that my scenario vindicates God's goodness and answers your questions on Satan. (As if you needed to ask, anyway!)
vjtorley
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
----Diffaxial to vivid: "Nor do you address the fallacy of argumentum ad populum committed by Stephen’s ridiculous (and tautological) list." This is the third inconsequential post that you have written after telling me that you didn't have time to address my refutation (@302) of your mistaken notion about causeless quantum events. Is this more symbolism over substance? Also, your claim that the metaphysical foundations of modern science are mere "tautologies" has long since been exposed as empty and meaningless pablum. It is impossible to reason without assuming these self-evident truths apriori. Also, I did not use argumentum ad populum at [302], so your comment to vivid is inappropirate. I do recall, however, using ad populum argumentum as a fitting counterpoise to your argumentum ad verecundiam.StephenB
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
beelzebub:
Telling us that Jephthah didn’t burn his daughter is no good — it contradicts the clear meaning of the text, including the original Hebrew.
You've ruled out the possibility of metaphorical speech - "as a burnt offering" - even where it's overwhelmingly supported by the context and spoken by a man you didn't know in a language you don't speak and whose customs are unknown to you. (My guess - in a book you haven't read.) And this without leaving any room for uncertainty. Sometimes I'm dogmatic and I assert that I'm unquestionably right, but I usually try to know what I'm talking about first.ScottAndrews
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
Vivid @ 313:
“You’ve repeatedly stated that rejection of your argument is inherently irrational, and denotes an irrational person.” It does. “Therefore your definition of a “rational person” is, in essence, “a person who agrees with my position.”” No Stephens position is that the definition of a irrational person is one that discards rationality which you do. “So your assertion boils down to “all people who agree with me, and all people who have ever agreed with me, agree with me.” I smell straw burning.
Congratulations. You've faithfully reproduced the tautology to which I refer, apparently unawares, even though it was just pointed out to you. Nor do you address the fallacy of argumentum ad populum committed by Stephen's ridiculous (and tautological) list.Diffaxial
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 302:
In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUANRANTEE the event. So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing.
By "physically necessary condition" you are, one would assume, referring to the characteristics of the quantum vacuum. Given that quantum vacuum is present throughout spacetime (due to Heisenberg uncertainty regarding energy states) and displays characteristics that are contingent on NO other facts, to cite its characteristics as a "necessary condition" of the emergence of a pair of virtual particles is rather like the FAA concluding that the cause of a particular air crash was "the laws of physics." A satisfactory explanation of such a crash - one that describes what we ordinarily refer to as its "cause" - must cite factors specific to the history of that event: pilot error, failure of the airframe, etc. However, in the instance of the emergence of virtual particles, beyond the existence of quantum vacuum itself, there are no further analogous specific conditions or facts of any kind (including particulars within the quantum vacuum itself) with bearing on the the particulars (particle types, energy levels, timing, etc.) of the emergence of a given pair of virtual particles. Those values are, within a given envelope of probability, irreducibly random, reflecting no other unknown factors. Yet those particles are unquestionably real and have empirically detectable consequences that have been affirmed beyond doubt. BTW, I'll be happy to add, "as I understand it." This is miles from anything resembling an area of expertise for me, and I'd be happy to be educated further. If you have other necessary/sufficient conditions in mind, please describe. My specific statements were the following:
Does it follow that all events are profitably described as “effects” that necessarily have causes? It does not. In particular, we directly observe that the notion breaks down at the quantum level, and it is also not at all clear that it is applicable to the universe as a whole, because we know that time came into being with that universe.
A similar illustration of breakdown of conventional "cause and effect" at the quantum level is illustrated by particle decay (an example cited earlier in other discussions). The timing of the occurrence of an individual particle decay event cannot be said to have a cause. Such events can be described probabilistically, but individual decay events are irreducibly random in their timing. There are no underlying conditions or hidden variables that determine the moment of a particular decay event or enable the prediction of that event. No external factors account for the decay event. There are no differences between a particle that decays in the next instant relative to another that decays some time later. There are no necessary or sufficient conditions for a decay event, relative to the non-occurence of a decay event in an identical particle (IOW the mere existence of the particle cannot be said to be a "necessary" or "sufficient" condition for a decay event, because an identical particle under identical circumstances may not decay).
And the notion that universes may appear out of the (quantum) void has genuine scientific currency.
An illustration (literally) of that scientific currency may be found in an illustration provided by NASA with a press release describing the WMAP satellite may be found at: wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline75.jpg Wikipedia reproduces the illustration on the article entitled "Universe" and captions the illustration as "Prevailing model of the origin of spacetime and all it contains." You'll notice that the leftmost (earliest) event is designated "quantum fluctuations." This, of course, doesn't establish that this model is correct, but it does demonstrate the scientific currency to which I refer above.Diffaxial
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
How about the one that says, “Thou shalt not murder.”
That's a commandment, not a dogma.beelzebub
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Oops, I mean, let's take [two] practical examples.StephenB
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
---beelzebub: "Dogma is a very bad idea." How about the one that says, "Thou shalt not murder." Let's take to practical examples: [A] Assume that you are the one about to be murdered, and that you do not live in a well-ordered society that provides legal protection. Assume also that the one who is about to murder you contends that dogmas, such as the fifth commandment, are a bad idea. Are you OK with that? [B] Assume that you exist in your mother's womb, and therefore, have no legal protection. It is OK for the abortionist to rip YOU apart, limb from limb?StephenB
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
----Diffaxial: 'As I said: “inexorably lapsing into your nasty habit of ad hominem remarks and characterizations.” Normally, I would provide a play by play of the events that led up to my comment, which was little more than a snippy response to a snippy comment. On the other hand, I don't want to distract you from addressing my refutations [@302] of your misguided notion that quantum events are causeless.StephenB
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
"You’ve repeatedly stated that rejection of your argument is inherently irrational, and denotes an irrational person." It does. "Therefore your definition of a “rational person” is, in essence, “a person who agrees with my position.”" No Stephens position is that the definition of a irrational person is one that discards rationality which you do. "So your assertion boils down to “all people who agree with me, and all people who have ever agreed with me, agree with me.” I smell straw burning. Vividvividbleau
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
For what it is worth, no one here believes that you will be rendered speechless by any reasoned argument however compelling that argument may be, or that you cannot fill up cyberspace in defense of postmoden irrationality however ineffective that defense may be, so you need not labor under that concern.
As I said: "inexorably lapsing into your nasty habit of ad hominem remarks and characterizations."Diffaxial
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 17

Leave a Reply