Fibonacci Life

_{Robert Sheldon

September 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

galaxy The Fibonacci sequence is one of those math marvels that even elementary students can appreciate. Like the discovery of the √2, it possesses this element of mystery that makes Pythagoras‘ harmonic series look like a rubber-band shoe-box next to a concert grand. Pythagoras famously drowned the fellow who discovered that √2 was neither even nor odd. It went against his religion. Fortunately for Gödel, the Pythagoreans did not control peer review when he demonstrated that unprovability was a whole lot worse than irrational numbers, but all math was “incomplete” and unable to exclude ambiguous theorems. But if we don’t demand that math obey our ideas of God, we can sit back an enjoy it. Here’s a YouTube video marvelling at the ubiquity of Fibonacci, calling it the fingerprint of God.

It is a well-worn metaphor, which other mathematicians might reserve for the Mandelbrot set. Physicists, on the other hand, prefer to see this in things like cosmology. Which raises the question, is the Fibonacci series merely a mathematician’s trick, or is there something hiding in the physics? Do the sunflower whorls contain a physical necessity, or merely an aesthetic necessity to match Fibonacci? And if so, then what about the spirals of galaxies? Surely we can say more about Fibonacci than mathematical aesthetics!

(Read more…)

Comments

The Physics of Illusion - video (Euler's Identity as a spiral at 23:00 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht3sAP-GQrkbornagain77_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

OK, so our free will can act as a local first cause, and add an additional cause to the stream of natural cause-and-effects that are going on. Presumably this intervention takes place inside us - in our biology - because for an act of free will to make any difference, we must act on it. So how does this happen? How does the immaterial will move the material world, so to speak? What is the nature of the immaterial/material interface. Or to put it another way, if we could examine every molecule of every cell in our body, what would we see when the will acted? Would we actually see anything that was any different from, and/or was distinguishable from, what we would see when our will was not acting? Any thoughts?Aleta_{October 1, 2010
October
10
Oct
1
01
2010
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Yes, I understand the difference between God as "the" first cause and our choices as "a" first cause - I think I referred to human choices as "little" first causes in earlier posts, and my diagram and its explanation above showed the free will choice little f intervening long after the first cause, God, had started the chain. So I now understand clearly, I think, Stephen's and other's theological understanding of the relationship between God, free will, and the law of causality, as mentioned in Stephen's list of questions way above. Thanks to those who participated in the discussion.Aleta_{September 30, 2010
September
09
Sep
30
30
2010
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Aleta, You raised a good question in regard to a free will choice as a first cause. I think Stephen answered it fairly well by differentiating "the" first cause (God) with "a" first cause (human free will choices). Just one observation: God is the ultimate cause of everything. In our free will choices we often cause something entirely by our choice and not necessarily due to anything in our makeup, which compels us to a certain action. But ultimately we would not have the choice to cause anything if we were not in the first place caused by God. Christians recognize this distinction as stemming from the sovereignty of God. God allows choice while at the same time, reserves the right to intervene when He sees fit. We may not even know that in certain instances He has intervened, and we might still believe that our current circumstance is a result of our choice. On the other hand, we may also have the view that we don't have choices and our current circumstance is the result of someone else's choice, such as government, a despised enemy, a devil, or even God Himself. That we are able to even think of causes other than our own seems to solidify the fact that in at least certain instances we make real choices and can cause events to happen without reference to a prior cause. Our influences in making these choices, however, I think is an entirely different matter. Free will and destiny with regard to God's sovereignty are tricky subjects, and are in my view somewhat paradoxical but not contradictory. It mirrors reality quite a bit.CannuckianYankee_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Aleta: I think the term first cause, or uncaused cause can be misleading in some contexts. For example, when we refer to God as the uncaused cause, or first cause, we are paying tribute to the fact that nothing at all preceded him or caused his existence. That is the way I am using the term. There is, however, another way to use that term, that is, we can refer to "a" first cause as opposed to "the" first cause, when discussing those things that humans can do after having been given the power to be a causal agent. When Geisler speaks of the exercise of the will as the first cause of our actions, I would argue that he is not speaking of "the" first cause but rather "a" first cause. He is saying that humans are doing something that God would not necessarily have done. I would be inclined to call it a "new" cause. As GPuccio has suggested, it makes a difference how we use those terms. For me, the word cause simply means something or someone that brings something else about. What can we say, for example, of Adam's first sin? Obviously, God did not bring sin into the world or, put another way, he did not bring it about. In keeping with that point, Adam brought sin into the world and was, in that sense, the first cause of sin. All the same, God is the cause of Adam's power to exercise his will and, in that sense, Adam's act is not a first cause.StephenB_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

very interesting discussion....I didn't see anything on one very interesting number though... One hundred thirty-seven is the value of a number called the fine-structure constant. This constant, 137, is the way physicists describe the probability that an electron will emit or absorb a photon. Because this is the basic physical mechanism of electricity and magnetism, the fine-structure constant has its own symbol, the Greek letter a, “alpha.” Now, alpha is nothing more, nothing less than the square of the charge of the electron divided by the speed of light times Planck’s constant. Thus this one little number contains in itself the guts of electromagnetism (the electron charge), relativity (the speed of light), and quantum mechanics (Planck’s constant). All in one number! Not only that, this number isn’t like the gravitational constant or the universal gas constant, full of meters and kilograms and degrees Celsius. Alpha is a pure, dimensionless number — little wonder that people have been fascinated. http://www.137.com/137/tsmith_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

It is amazing how such a seemingly simple subject like free will, which it taken for granted by most people, can become such deep topic of conversation. I even saw a physics professor, whose name I can't place right now, once weigh in on the topic of free will. He was talking about how quantum mechanics had completely dismantled the Newtonian notion of complete determinacy that had become prevalent in western thought. A complete determinacy that had brought many people to seriously question whether there was any free will for man whatsoever. In fact this relic is a foundational false notion that still underpins Darwinian 'psychology'.,, the physics professor main point of his lecture, on free will and quantum mechanics, was to focus on the area of quantum wave collapse for the observer. He said something to the effect the 'proof' for free will comes from the indeterminacy of wave collapse.,, Myself I struggled deeply with this 'problem' of free will from a slightly different perspective in my Theism, since from my perspective God knows all things that will ever happen in this universe since He is completely transcendent of time as well as being infinite in knowledge. Thus I was stuck with the nagging question of, "How can God be sovereign and yet I have free will?",,, It was just one of those simple questions that I just could not make sense of for the longest time,,, Finally about the only way I could make peace with the seeming conflict, was to accept what one preacher had said about the topic. He said something like this,, Though God is sovereign and knows everything that will ever happen, in His sovereignty He allows us, by His 'permissive will', the capacity to freely choose good and evil, In His 'permissive will' He allows us the capacity to love Him or not.bornagain77_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Stephen. The Geisler quote addresses my question, although it seems to be a bit inconsistent in part. Geisler writes, "Finite things need a cause. The person who performs the act is caused by God. The ‘power’ of freedom is caused by God, but the ‘exercise’ of freedom is caused by the person. The self is the first cause of personal actions." Ok, I get that. Among other things it seems consistent with my thoughts above in 160: God is the ultimate cause of our free will, but once that power is ours, our decisions have no proximate cause other than our own exercise of that power - as Geisler says, "The self is the first cause of personal actions." But then Geisler says, "The principle of causality is not violated because every finite thing and every action has a cause.” This seems inconsistent with what came before, because he has said that our freely chosen actions are first causes, which by definition don't have a prior cause. It seems to me that, given the first statements, that it would be more appropriate to restate the law of causality to state that every effect is the product of a cause except for acts of free will by a human being. Otherwise human acts of free do violate the law of causality, because they are acts which have no prior cause: Geisler says, as I have suggested, that our free will acts are first causes. gpuccio also writes: "I would say that free actions are, in a sense, uncaused causes, in the sense that they have no phenomenic cause. The proximate cause of free actions is the power of the transcendental self to choose among available options." And since the sense we are discussing is precisely that of having no phenomic cause, I think his statement agrees with Geisler - "our free actions are ... uncaused causes." Also, gpuccio, I did read your post at 151 with interest, and appreciate the time you put into it. I didn't respond because I wanted to concentrate on this one philosophical point, which is now mostly cleared up to my satisfaction. The complexities of how free will interacts with the complications of all the material causal chains that impinge upon on us, including all the internal biological ones, is a fascinating topic, but I was focused on the other point. So the picture I have is that if you conceptualize the nature world as a vast complex web of chains of cause-and-effect, stretching back to the beginning of the universe (including all the material biology which is present in our body), our free will is continually making little insertions of uncaused causes into those material chains, setting them one way or another in a different way than they would have gone if we had chosen differently: the material world is continually being perturbed, so to speak, by the uncaused causes initiated by the freely willed choices of huamn beings. I wish I could draw a picture. Imagine a chain of events A > B > C > ... in the material world, with the chain stretching backward idefinitely to the ultimate first cause, God. However, now imagine a new cause f (little f, not the big F in the chain) that represent a free will act, so that the situation looks like this: (the little dots mean nothing - there are just because I don't think multiple spaces will parse right) ..............f ..............\/ A > B > C > > D > E > F > G f has no antecedents - it's an uncaused cause, but it enters the causal chain at C, and therefore D, E, F and G are different than they would have been if f hadn't happened. That's how free will operates, if I understand this discussion correctly.Aleta_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Aleta: I absolutely agree with Stephen, and you can see in my 151 a detailed explanation of why I do. I would say that free actions are, in a sense, uncaused causes, in the sense that they have no phenomenic cause. The proximate cause of free actions is the power of the transcendental self to choose among available options. I would say, anyway, that any free action has some moral meaning. Especially writing posts here :) . But please, see my post 151 for the details.gpuccio_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

---Aleta: "Still my core question remains unanswered – to the extent that our free will can act in the larger context of the other causes that you list, does the action of our free will constitute an uncaused cause>" Your core question has been answered several times and in several ways. You are the cause of your actions, though your freedom is limited by a number of elements that I have already alluded to. Perhaps, it will help if I quote another authority on the matter. From Normal Geisler: "Finite things need a cause. The person who performs the act is caused by God. The 'power' of freedom is caused by God, but the 'exercise' of freedom is caused by the person. The self is the first cause of personal actions. The principle of causality is not violated because every finite thing and every action has a cause." [By this, he means that God, the uncaused cause, is not finite].StephenB_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Thank you, Stephen. I look forward to a more extensive response. Still my core question remains unanswered - to the extent that our free will can act in the larger context of the other causes that you list, does the action of our free will constitute an uncaused cause.Aleta_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

--Aleta: “But let’s concentrate on the philosophy about the nature of our free will first: are our acts of free will uncaused proximate causes – causes which are not the effect of any immediately prior cause?” Time for only an abbreviated response. I submit that any volitional act is the effect of a multiplicity of causes, including psychodynamic forces, behavioral influences, biological urges, the ravages of original sin, the fact that God continues to keep our will in existence [it wasn't just created, it is also being sustained], and of course, the free will decision that must be made in the context of all these other limiting influences. While its range is quite limited, it does neverthess, exist. I can influence my unconscious, or at least, my subconsious mind; I can work around many, not all, of my environmental problems; I can, with God's help, re-direct my biological urges and command them to conform to God's laws; I can, with the help of grace and self discipline, become closer to God and improve the psychological traits damaged by original sin. I am not required to retain the vices of lust, greed, envy, pride, and anger of my youth. I need not submit to those who would keep me in poverty, subvert my education, or take away my political freedoms, all of which, by the way, are meaningful only in the context of free will. If, on the other hand, I do not have this power, then I have nothing at all to say about my future or my destiny, or even the kind of person I am or can become. Under the circumstances, I am no better than an animal, and I can never rise above animal status, always obeying the demands of my lower nature and never rising above it. That would also mean that I must remain a political slave to any tyrant who, himself is a slave to some other unnamed force. More important still, it means that my eternal fate was sealed before I was born and that God allowed me no options other than to play out his preliminary decision either to save me or damn me at his whim. I cannot imagine a more monstrous, or untrue, doctrine.StephenB_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

RE 160 "But let’s concentrate on the philosophy about the nature of our free will first: are our acts of free will uncaused proximate causes – causes which are not the effect of any immediately prior cause?" Aleta excellent question. I have my own thoughts on this but do not want to be a distraction. Suffice to say that to me this is a fascinating discussion. Vividvividbleau_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Hi Aleta. I find you a very good deeper thinker and I like very much this quality in people. Then I try to answer your request with some deep thinking. You post: "are our acts of free will uncaused proximate causes – causes which are not the effect of any immediately prior cause?" I answer to this YES. Absolutely YES. You can be trapped, tied, without any possibility off movement, and even so, you can see that you are able of somthing that nobody can stop until you has dead, to think (bad or good, but to think, it's not important now). And then you can say, if I have not free of movement, what's matter I can think? That matters because you can see you are not only a material thing, you can continue creating information with you mind and even, in a determined instant, use it, now materialized, to go out the trap, or even if you see it as impossible, use this moments to, for example, pray for your most wanted people. Then the cuestion could be: and when I have a normal life, free of any phisical tie (if you think it well you can see that you are from birth to dead tied to one only thing: the Universe, although withou this Universe you could not exist) for what can I use this rare ability of thinking? Imagine you have 1000 pieces of a puzzle in front of you. All are disordered, and you may want to construct that puzzle. You are Intelligene enough to make it, but you can think: "for me it's a waste of my time" or well "I like very much to solve puzzles". You can do what you want, as if you want to burn this puzzle. But you only realize one. How can you know what is best for you?, if is not important a decision to another, then take your decision what you take, the final result seems dont have relevance. Then no problem: "I do what I want to do, and everybody happy" But thinks a moment, if you decide solve the puzzle, the result is that the "mini-universe" which is surrounding you is more ordered, that is, had more information, is better. Any other decision is not so good with respect to your decision. Then when you take a good decision, is when your enviroment is better, but not only for you, but to others living with you. Then you can see clearly that in front of a same scenario, you are free to act with free will, but if you understand that you are a information creator, and that is what is your mind, then you can put this information in place or decide to increment the disorder. And this is all God wants for you, that you do things freely, but do them as He intended better for you and for all. You think that what you see with your mind is yourself, but you, and I and all what are seeing is not to ourselves, only, we are all seeing the Light that we are free to close our mind to It and see all with physical eyes, but you know as well as I the two eyes are not the same. My better for you. ObritonObriton_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Stephen. I'd like to respond to three aspects of what you wrote. First, you write, "I submit that we are the causes of our moral choices, but God is the cause of our capacity to make those moral choices." I assume that you are not implying that the only place we have free will is in respect to moral choices - is that correct? I am choosing to write this post, for instance, rather than go wash the dishes: this is a conscious act of free will, but not particularly a moral choice. Then you write, "Insofar as God created our will, God is its cause; insofar as we have been created as causal agents, we are the causes of our actions. ... Put yet another way, our capacity to make free choices is, in a very real sense, the effect of another cause, namely God’s creative power." Yes, God is the ultimate cause of our free will, as he is the ultimate cause of everything. However, is he the proximate cause of the particular choices we make? This is the issue I am interested in: when I make a conscious decision to perform an action - an act of free will - is there any prior cause of which my decision is an effect, or is my choice an uncaused cause? Yes, God gave us this free will, but once given, do we truly have the power to initiate an action free from any prior causes? It seems to me you are perhaps not addressing this particular aspect of the situation, as you wrote, "All effects are accounted for, meaning there are no effects hanging out there without causes, yet our will is free." I don't think invoking God as the ultimate cause of our free will is the same as establishing that there is a direct causal chain from God to our actions, unless you mean to imply that in fact God's will is the cause of our freely willed actions, and I don't think that is your intent (perhaps I am wrong about that.) You use the interesting phrase "effects hanging out there without causes", but that phrase perhaps bypasses the issues. By definition, I think, an effect has a cause. The question is whether our freely chosen acts are effects (caused by prior causes), or are in fact pure uncaused causes. So the question is not whether there are "effects hanging out there without causes." In a causal chain, every event (except the first one) is both a cause and an effect: an effect of previous causes and the cause of new effects. We assume that God is the ultimate first, uncaused cause. The question is whether our acts of free will also serve as first causes - events which cause effects but are not the effect of prior causes. That is, instead of asking if there are "effects hanging out there without causes", I am asking if our freely chosen acts shouldn't be described as "causes hanging out there without being an effect" - little mini first causes? What do you think? Does the distinction, and question, that I am asking make sense? And third, a lesser note that I don't want to distract from the central point above, you write, "God created our will to be free (within obvious boundaries, of course) ..." It seems to me that the way our free will interacts with, and is limited by, more material aspects of our biological nature, is far from obvious. But let's concentrate on the philosophy about the nature of our free will first: are our acts of free will uncaused proximate causes - causes which are not the effect of any immediately prior cause?Aleta_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Hi Aleta: I have been called away, so to speak, but I will offer an abbreviated response to your very relevant question: I submit that we are the causes of our moral choices, but God is the cause of our capacity to make those moral choices. Insofar as God created our will, God is its cause; insofar as we have been created as causal agents, we are the causes of our actions. Put another way, God created our will to be free (within obvious boundaries, of course) which means that he created us as moral agents capable of making moral choices. Put yet another way, our capacity to make free choices is, in a very real sense, the effect of another cause, namely God’s creative power. All effects are accounted for, meaning there are no effects hanging out there without causes, yet our will is free. Even our final end is the effect of a series of prior causes for which God [and we] are responsible. Sow a thought; reap an act, Sow an act; reap a habit, Sow a habit; reap a character, Sow a character; reap a destiny.StephenB_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Hi Stephen, I know people only respond to some points, for various reasons, and that this thread is almost done (or done.) However, I'm still interested in the question of the nature of acts of human free will. Are they uncaused, because they are free, or caused? And if uncaused, does that make them examples of "first" causes, so to speak - causes of effects that have no cause themself. I am interested in how free will fits into the theory of causality, so I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.Aleta_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

---markf: [how do you know that the statement Jupiter both exists and does not exist is nonsense] ---"In much the same way as I know that “green ideas sleep furiously” is nonsense. The individual words make sense. It is grammatically correct. But the statement has no function." But it does have a function. Among other things, it can serve as the starting point for a reductio ad absurdum. Also, it helps me demonstrate the absurdity of denying the law of non-contradiction. Further, a statement cannot be non-nonsensical solely on the grounds that it doesn't resonate with you. It can only be nonsensical if it doesn't resonate with anyone. --"I cannot work out what the speaker is intending to convey or do with the words." But the meaning is quite clear: Jupiter can exist and not exist. I know what the statement means, most readers know what it means, and I dare say you know what it means. ---"He has not told me anything about Jupiter." On the contrary, he has told you two things about Jupiter. Of course, those two things are contradictory, but that should be no problem for anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction as a self-evident truth. ---"Imagine that someone came up to you and said “Jupiter exists and does not exist” with all the appearance of sincerity. Would you think he was misinformed, lying or speaking gobbledygook?" I would know that he is irrational and is likely a product of postmodernist brainwashing. I would explain to him that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist because the law of non-contradiction that rules out the possibility that ANYTHING can exist and not exist. In true postmodernist fashion, he would likely counter that modern science, especially quantum mechanics, has rendered the law of non-contradiction obsolete. I would then have to explain to him that science does not have the power to invalidate the laws of logic inasmuch as the latter has logical precedence over the former. He would, of course, ask me for "evidence," and I would have to inform him that evidence doesn't inform reason's rules, reason's rules inform evidence. Steeped in irrational subjectivism, he would deny the point, assert that reason has no rules, and insist that evidence can be interpreted to suit the prejudices of the investigator. In other words, he would begin making your arguments.StephenB_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

This article may be very interesting for some (gpuccio and kairosfocus): Mere Biochemistry: Cell Division Involves Thousands of Complex, Interacting Parts http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201009.htm#20100925abornagain77_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

Stephen: Your agenda of questions is certainly an interesting diagnostic on worldviews. One may debate clarity on some points [maybe, too much background context assumed, e.g. on many truths], and one may debate certain points, but overall an excellent work. Looks like an emerging diagnostic exercise to me, DSM whatever? On cause, I note that we have sufficient factors, necessary factors, contributory factors, synergistic factors that mutually multiply on impact, sometimes a necessary and sufficient cluster of factors, and what Wiki summarises as J. L. Mackie's argument thsat common talk of cause is a reference to " INUS conditions (insufficient and non-redundant parts of unnecessary but sufficient causes). For example, a short circuit as a cause for a house burning down." In the clustered sense of cause in a given setting, I think it is reasonable to say that on our experience of the world and understanding derived therefrom, effects do not rise above their causes. On first and final causes, I have a few notes: 1: It is a condition of events that begin to occur or may cease from being in our observed world, that there is a cosmos in which they happen. 2: So, the issue of first cause is a question of origin of a cosmos that evidently itself had a beginning and will per thermodynamics run down in a finite time, i.e. it credibly had a beginning at a finite point in the past. 3: Final cause is often used in the sense of goal or purpose. Our finely tuned cosmos, with a complex and delicately balanced adaptation to support C-chemistry cell based life, shows strong signs of purpose. 4: In that context, to baldly suggest that cause-effect chains can occur without a first cause is an expression of a worldview premise, not an observationally anchored claim. That is, it is tantamount to a declaration of materialism. 5: Going beyond that, above I cited Plato, on the issue of the nature of the first cause: the self-moved mover, the soul, whereby chains of consequential effects that are secondary, tertiary etc causes. 6: An infinite regress of effects that have finite duration is not credibly traversible by our observed, evidently finitely old cosmos. So, those who posit endless chains of effects have a serious factual adequacy problem here. 7: Of course Plato argued that the cosmos as a whole is an effect, which is still a very credible point, whatever one may wish to say about the details of Plato's argument. _______________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

For fun here are my answers to the 25 questions. As you might expect, the vast majority I find I need clarification. In some cases I have tried to undertake that clarification. I cannot understand why the desire for clarification should count as a kind of scepticism. These are abstract phrases used in unusual contexts and combinations. Without examples and help it is almost impossible to be sure of what you mean. [1] Can we know anything about the real world? Yes of course. [2] If the answer to [1] is no, is it, under those circumstances, possible to conduct rational investigations or participate in rational discourse? n/a [3] Is the law of non-contradiction a self-evident truth? Depends on what you mean by "true" - see earlier comment. [4] Is the law of causality a self-evident truth? False - "cause" can mean all sorts of things but I cannot find any meaning which entails that every thing that comes into existence must have a cause. [5] Our knowledge of the real world is reliable but imperfect. True [6] A finite whole can be less than any one of its parts. Depends - "less" in what respect? [7] The universe is ordered? Could mean almost anything. [8] If the universe is ordered, it is syncronized with the laws of mathematics and logic? Could mean almost anything [9] There can be more than one truth? Given your clarification in #148 - true (incidentally it appears Morton Adler would agree with me!) [10] In some cases, a cause can give more than it has to give, meaning that in some cases, there can be something in the effect that was not first in the cause. True (I think - but could do with some clarification) [11] Does truth exist? Needs clarification. [12] Is there a natural moral law? Needs clarification. [13] Does the human conscience exist? Needs clarification. [14] Is design detectable? In sense that ID usually means it - no. Of course we detect design all the time but this relies on explicit or implicit assumptions about possible designers. [15] Do I consider many of these questions unanaswerable of meaningless? Yes [16] Does God exist? Needs clarification. [17] Can matter investigate itself? Needs clarification. [18] Evidence can speak for itself, it need not be interpreted by or mediated through the rules of right reason. Needs clarification. [19] Do I have free will? Needs clarification. [20] Can minds detect the activity of other minds? Of course. I am doing it right now. [21] If the ordered universe is synchronized with the laws of logic, it could be a coincidence. n/a [22] The periodic table of elements does not necessarily indicate the presence of an intelligent agent. True [23] A universe can come into existence without a cause. Yes - it is logically possible. [24] Unquided evolution is a reasonable hypothesis. Yes [25] Cause and effect can occur without a first cause. Yesmarkf_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

Stephenb On the law of non-contradiction You ask how do I know that Jupiter exists and does not exist is nonsense. In much the same way as I know that "green ideas sleep furiously" is nonsense. The individual words make sense. It is grammatically correct. But the statement has no function. I cannot work out what the speaker is intending to convey or do with the words. He has not told me anything about Jupiter. Imagine that someone came up to you and said "Jupiter exists and does not exist" with all the appearance of sincerity. Would you think he was misinformed, lying or speaking gobbledygook?markf_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

Stephenb On clarifying the meaning of some of your questions Surely some of the responses following your list make it clear that abstract concepts such as "conscience", "free will" and "natural moral order" need clarification. This cannot just be dismissed as a tactic. I believe we have free will - but you (or it may have been a colleague) have said in the past that my concept is not the same as yours and that it is not "real" free will. How else can one resolve this but by examining the meaning of what we say? It is not just a matter of knowing what the words mean (although that is bad enough). It is sometimes the question as a whole that needs clarifying. E.g 11) Does truth exist? I know the normal English meaing of all three words. But what is the question driving at? Are you asking if some statements are true? Or are you asking if there is some one thing called "truth"? Or what? Is it unreasonable to seek this type of clarification? I will deal with the law of non-contradiction in the next comment.markf_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

Aleta: we recently had a very long (and very interesting) collective discussion about free will, where all positions were discussed in great detail. The thread was this one: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-the-demarcation-problem/ and it is 712 comments long. My personal discussion starts at 4, 11, 59, 64, 91, and goes on for the whole thread, which is very rich in contributions of many people with very different positions. It is really one of the best threads on UD, IMO. In case you don't feel like reading all the 712 posts :), I will try to summarize here for you at least part of my personal position: 1)Free will means that humans can react to circumstances in different ways, and that the way they react is at least in part not determined by the sum of the circumstamnces acting on them. Free will means that, at any moment, the behaviour of humans is not completely determined by circumstances (including one’s previous internal states), but has a “range” of variability which is determined by a free cause inherent to the conscious subject, and to nothing else. 2) That “range of freedom” can be very small, or great enough: that we really don’t know, and it probably depends on many variables. But the important concept is that it is there, and it can and does change our personal destiny. 3) Free will is the intuitive perception of agency. I believe that, without free will, we would have no concept of conscious agency. Free will is the necessary consequence of the output connection of consciousness to reality, just as perception and cognition are the necessary consequence of its input connection. Without free will there would be no non algorithmic knowledge in human mind, and no CSI could ever be produced. But free will is probably strictly connected to representations of meanings and purposes. After all, our basic choices are in the realm of cognition (true-false) and of feeling (good-bad). 4)The actual choice, in the moment it is done, utilizes all those conscious representations, at various levels of the mind, as a “substrate”. Those representations include rational elaborations of reality, past experiences, past feelings, and so on. But it is the responsibility of the agent how it reacts to that scenario, in each single case, in the range of the reactions which are possible for it in that context. That choice is not neutral, nor probabilistic: it has moral and spiritual value, because it is a choice between alternatives which have different value for the agent. So, the agent can each time choose to pursue what is best in his personal destiny, let’s say “to respond to love and God and good”, or it may choose differently. 5)Free will is all about choices. Those choices ar not purely cognitive (the problem is not: what seems more rational we do, as everybody should easily recognize). And they are nor purely choices of felling (the problem is not: what I desire I do, because otherwise everybody would be morally perfect). The problem is: out of the few things which I can really do, because I feel I can do them, which is the one which correspond best to my highest intuition of what is good? Which is the one which is most appropriate according to God’s will, and not simply according to what I desire? We can even think of free will in a different way: as a faculty that we can exercise or not. In that sense, if we do not exercise our free will, we will be completely determined by our previous experiences, by our desires, by our human nature. But if we choose to actively use that inner resource, we can change that. We can put our life in tune with higher values and intuitions, which are trans-personal, which are better and more pure and more powerful than what we can do by ourselves. In other words, we can actively become receptive to good, and to God’s will. And that changes everything. 6)We cannot attribute to God the same concept of free will which is appropriate for us. In that sense, God can be said not to have free will. He simply does not need it! He is free, and He harbors no contradictions and no conflicts and no imperfections in Himself. So, He just does what He wants, and what He wants is good. Well, I believe that our free will is a reflection of God’s freedom, in an imperfect and limited being, with conflicting desires and views, including the conflict between accepting the will of God (the good) and rebelling to it (the bad). If God had not given us that gift, that reflection if His complete freedom, we would be completely determined. But He has. And therefore, we are strongly influenced, but partially free. That is free will: partial freedom, in a worlds of imperfection and contingency. That’s why the natural expression of that partial freedom is the power to choose, rather than the power to freely will, which is of God. But that power to choose is no small thing. If repeatedly and patiently applied to choose good, it changes us, it changes our destiny, and it opens us to the grace of God. Well, this is just to give you an idea. But there is much more on the thread, and there are a lot of good and deep contributions from materialists, atheists, compatibilists of various kinds, religious people for or against free will, and so on.gpuccio_{September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

Stephen, I really would like to hear your thoughts on the free will issue. Let me outline my understanding of what might be your position. God is the first cause. Every effect has a cause, but we can't have an infinite regress, so there must be a first cause. God is the being who can start a chain of cause-and-effects in motion without being caused himself. However, what goes on "inside God", so to speak, when he acts? For instance, at some point God chose to create our universe, but it wouldn't make sense to ask, "well, what caused God to do that?" God is never an effect - his actions are always uncaused causes. In this sense, everything God does he does through unfettered and unadulterated free will - there are no contingent causes impinging on him in the least - no outside influences on his choices. Now what about free will in human beings. On the one hand, if only God can create uncaused effects, then our actions, which are "downstream", so to speak, from God are thus caused effects, and therefore we don't have free will. On the other hand, perhaps our will is like a little God inside us, which can initiate uncaused effects - our free will, while still entangled with our material, biological existence, can still exercise some control over what we do. If this case, how effective is this - happening all the time with varying degrees of effectiveness, just sometimes, or what? And if this is the case, then we constantly violate the law that every effect has a cause, or more accurately, we continually act as a first cause. Can you elaborate or respond on this issue. Have I said things that agree with your view, and if not, what can you correct?Aleta_{September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

—Aleta: “16) “Does God exist” is outside the scope of human knowledge.” That would be a no. One point in favor of hyperskepticism
If simply being a strong agnostic - we really can't know the true nature of metahysical reality - makes me, in your words, a "hyperskeptic", then guilty as charged, and not a bit chagrined . I think it's the reasonable position. Skipping over my non-hyperskeptical answers, When I said that universe was ordered, you replied, "You avoided the question about whether it is syncronized with the laws of logic or whether the correspondence is a coincidence, or whether there are laws of logic." I didn't avoid the question. I said I was answering the easy ones, and those would have taken more discussion. On truth, you write, "OK. Fair enough. The issue is whether there is only one truth with many aspects or whether there can be many truths, [a truth for science, another truth for philosophy, another truth for religion etc]." I think there are different kinds of truth, or perhaps truth along a spectrum based on the experiences that establish it for us, and I think truth is something relative to the capabilities of human beings.
” Is there a natural moral law?" me: outside the scope of human knowledge you: One point in favor of hyperskepticism.
Same issue as God - I think my position is the reasonable one - I am skeptical that human beings can know all things, but there is nothing hyper about that. Now on free will, you write "Free will=ability to exert some control over one’s destiny, meaning that some semblance of a self directed life style is possible," , but I would be interested in your answer to my question.
if one assumes that every effect must have a cause except for the one first cause, does that mean all our actions must have a cause, and therefore we don’t have free will? Or, if you do think we have free will, does that mean that uncaused causes are happening every day, in every action we make, so the assumption that all effects but the first effect have a cause is wrong?”
On minds, if you define them as "Mind=immaterial faculty of knowing" then I am agnostic (aka hyperskeptical) about that also. I assume the same distinction applies to conscience: I don't think we have an immaterial conscience that knows some absolute moral law. God, natural moral law (and absolute Truth with a capital T), immaterial mind and conscience, are all things that I don't think we can know about. There are things that point to them as possibilities, and things that point to them as not, but we (humankind in general) don't have the tools to actually investigate and reach a consensual decision on these matters. If that be hyperskepticism in your eyes, then so be it. I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true, and even though I don't have a word for it I would rather have my position than a strong but unfounded opinion that my ideas were certifiably right and everyone who disagreed with me was wrong.Aleta_{September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

---Aleta: "16) “Does God exist” is outside the scope of human knowledge." That would be a no. One point in favor of hyperskepticism ---"“Does the human conscience exist?” – not clear what answering yes or no would mean to you. If you mean as some kind of separate non-material entity in a person, I would say that I personally don’t think so, but I also think the question is unanswerable in that there is no way for human beings to come to a definite answer." That would be a qualified no, which would be another point for hyperskepticism. ---[1] Can we know anything about the real world? Yes One point away from hyperskepticism. [5] Our knowledge of the real world is reliable but imperfect. True One point away from hyperskepticism ---[6] A finite whole can be less than any one of its parts. No, assuming we are using the mathematical sense of parts being discrete, disjoint elements. OK. One point away from hyperskepticism. ---[7] The universe is ordered? Yes, assuming that you mean that it runs according to various laws, exhibits consistency in that similar situations generally produce similar results, is susceptible to causal explanations tying one moment to the next … Hmmm, looks like this one would need a bit of explanation as to what “ordered” means, as obviously there is great deal of disorder in the world. Scratch this one as an easy one to answer. You avoided the question about whether it is syncronized with the laws of logic or whether the correspondence is a coincidence, or whether there are laws of logic. That would be two points in favor of hyperskepticism. ---There can be more than one truth? Of course. 2 + 2 = 4 is true. The sky is blue is true (unless you want to get pedantic.) I am typing on a computer is true. You would have to be clearer about what this question means if my obvious answer is not relevant." OK. Fair enough. The issue is whether there is only one truth with many aspects or whether there can be many truths, [a truth for science, another truth for philosophy, another truth for religion etc]. ---" Does truth exist? Sure. See 1) and 9) One point away from hyperskepticism ---" Is there a natural moral law? outside the scope of human knoweldge One point in favor of hyperskepticism. ---"Do I have free will? Here’s a question: if one assumes that every effect must have a cause except for the one first cause, does that mean all our actions must have a cause, and therefore we don’t have free will? Or, if you do think we have free will, does that mean that uncaused causes are happening every day, in every action we make, so the assumption that all effects but the first effect have a cause is wrong?" Free will=ability to exert some control over one's destiny, meaning that some semblance of a self directed life style is possible, meaning that psychodynamic, behavioral, and biological influences are not calling all the shots. --- Can minds detect the activity of other minds? Indirectly, by watching the actions of creations whom I assume have minds, but not directly: we can’t interact mind-to-mind. (This doesn’t affect my answer, but the word mind needs to be clarified – are we talking just consciousness here, or are we talking about our larger cognitive/emotional self?) Mind=immaterial faculty of knowing.StephenB_{September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

16) "Does God exist" is outside the scope of human knowledge 13) "Does the human conscience exist?" - not clear what answering yes or no would mean to you. If you mean as some kind of separate non-material entity in a person, I would say that I personally don't think so, but I also think the question is unanswerable in that there is no way for human beings to come to a definite answer. If you mean do I think that being concerned about doing right and wrong is a natural part of the human personality, then my answer is yes. This is just one example of ways in which your questions are too black-and-white, and without discussion and clarification can't be answered. I don't call this hyper-skepticism - I call this intellectual sophistication: being able to see the complexities of a situation and not thinking of everything as black-and-white issues. Here are some that are realtively easy for me to answer without excessive clarification [1] Can we know anything about the real world? Yes [5] Our knowledge of the real world is reliable but imperfect. True [6] A finite whole can be less than any one of its parts. No, assuming we are using the mathematical sense of parts being discrete, disjoint elements. [7] The universe is ordered? Yes, assuming that you mean that it runs according to various laws, exhibits consistency in that similar situations generally produce similar results, is susceptible to causal explanations tying one moment to the next ... Hmmm, looks like this one would need a bit of explanation as to what "ordered" means, as obviously there is great deal of disorder in the world. Scratch this one as an easy one to answer. [9] There can be more than one truth? Of course. 2 + 2 = 4 is true. The sky is blue is true (unless you want to get pedantic.) I am typing on a computer is true. You would have to be clearer about what this question means if my obvious answer is not relevant. [11] Does truth exist? Sure. See 1) and 9) [12] Is there a natural moral law? outside the scope of human knoweldge [19] Do I have free will? Here's a question: if one assumes that every effect must have a cause except for the one first cause, does that mean all our actions must have a cause, and therefore we don't have free will? Or, if you do think we have free will, does that mean that uncaused causes are happening every day, in every action we make, so the assumption that all effects but the first effect have a cause is wrong? [20] Can minds detect the activity of other minds? Indirectly, by watching the actions of creations whom I assume have minds, but not directly: we can't interact mind-to-mind. (This doesn't affect my answer, but the word mind needs to be clarified - are we talking just consciousness here, or are we talking about our larger cognitive/emotional self?)Aleta_{September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

MF: In this generation, where first principles of right reason are often derided and almost as often in ignorance of what is being rejected, that ignorance is itself telling. But, I would think that most who have not been spoiled by our education systems will understand what is being claimed when one says that something, say A, cannot both be and not be in the same sense at the same time. Ours is a saddening day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

If you ask the average man on the street if Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time, he will likely provide the correct answer.StephenB_{September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply