Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

LNC: “Yes or No”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Let’s clear up this law of noncontradiction issue between StephenB and eigenstate once and for all. StephenB asks eigenstate: “Can the planet Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense? That’s a “yes or no” question eigenstate. How do you answer it?

Further update: Eigenstate has run for cover.
The genesis of this post was StephenB’s accusation that eigenstate refused to concede the law of noncontradiction: “For you [i.e.,eigenstate], the law of non-contradiction is a “useful tool” except on those occasions when it reveals the poverty of your non-arguments, at which time, it can be safely discounted. That position alone renders you unfit for rational dialogue.”

Surely not, I thought to myself. No one can argue logically and at the same time ever deny the law of noncontradiction, because the law of noncontradiction underlies ALL logical arguments. So I put this post up to give eigenstate a chance to refute StephenB’s accusation. I know eigenstate came back onto this site after I put up this post, because he commented on another string after this post went up. Yet he refused to answer the question. I can only conclude from this that StephenB is correct. Eigenstate and his ilk are not acting in good faith. They feel free to spew their nonsense, but when they are confronted with a challenge they cannot meet they run away. He is not, as StephenB points out, fit for rational dialogue, and you will not see him on this site again.

Another update: At another site Eigenstate says he responded here, which is an outrageous lie. At that same site he put up an idiot’s answer to the question which is not worth responding to. Suffice it to say it was neither “yes” nor “no.”

Comments
Same conversation on two threads, so here's a link to my post on the other thread on the subject: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/only-those-who-admit-the-foundation-of-argumentation-will-be-allowed-to-argue-at-ud/#comment-420703Aleta
February 16, 2012
February
02
Feb
16
16
2012
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
--ben h: "You have no cause to be belligerent towards me and I am offended that you would so easily strike such a tone." You mean that you don't know whether Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time in the same way? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just say, "I don't know. Teach me how that works and why it matters.StephenB
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
Good one, Charles? Even even Ayn Rand's chum, Greenspan?Axel
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
F/N: Let me note that since we all have implanted consciences, we are responsible to live by that light, and not by the counsels of might makes right. KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
BH: In fact, insofar as QM has any relation, SB has expressed support for my response. Boiled down, superposition is not equivalent to A and NOT-A being true in the same sense and context; regardless of how some try to put such a construction on it. However, those who reject LNC seem to find appeals to QM a refuge from the issue on the merits. Further, insofar as ES has given an answer, he rejects LNC, then tries to all but accept it on grounds that Jupiter is big. In short, he realises that an outright rejection would be absurd. So, let me ask you to stretch a string and then pluck it. You will see a standing wave with nodes at the ends. Are those fixed ends still or moving or both? They are the result of supposition of waves reflected with phase inversion and the opposed forces lead to what we see. But, that is most definitely not a contradiction. Superposition is not contradiction. KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Petrushka: What Mr Arrington has banned is for surrogates putting in the post by ES en bloc [after a reasonable time limit passed in which ES was reserved the right of first comment for this thread -- and comments by BA 77 and I were removed to make sure that was possible . . . ], not trying to defend his ideas. In any case all of that is moot as the post in all its glory is here at UD, as put up -- not in a mere comment but in a full UD original post by me -- with onward links. Of course the rub is, I have added my own notes on it. (But I am sure, if you want, you can jut follow the links back to where the post appears without my notes.) I would like to see an answer to SB's challenge: can Jupiter the planet be and not be in the same sense, time and place? Y/N, and why so. And I think I can speak for myself: I am sick of the filth, and have had enough of dealings with those who reek of filth and seem to not see that wallowing and glorying in filth is a problem. Those who have threatened my family, have tried to "out" me in hopes that this would do me damage, have cyberstalked, have taken unrelated pictures and smeared slanders across them, have twisted my words to make me out to be a hater of women and worse, have filled my comment inbox with slanders and foul, obscene slurs, or have meekly gone along with those doing so, and so on and so forth, month after month, should know that there is a price to doing such. When one of these made the mistake of using an obscenity to the owner of this blog, he understandably went livid and decided enough is enough. You now have to live with the consequences of your side's action, sustained in the teeth of requests to cease and desist, month after month. Such have disqualified themselves from civil dialogue by proving that, by manifest and persistent habit, they are the foulest of reprobate-minded nihilists and abusive bully-boys. Yes, NIHILISTS. THEY HAVE TRIED TO LIVE BY THE NOTION THAT IF THEY THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, THEY ARE FREE TO DO AS THEY PLEASE. By might and manipulation makes 'right', in short. By exactly what they were so hot to deride and dismiss when it was pointed out: namely, that if your worldview has in it no foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT, thereafter you are left only to might and manipulation make 'right'. Such are a menace, not dialogue partners. And if you doubt me, you can go and look at what happened over the past year whenever I took a moment to try to interact on objector sites and sites open to such without effective restraint and policing. Almost, the first resort was to fling filth or smears around and try to abuse. It came to such a level that I decided that it would be enough to state for record, when something came to my attention as sufficiently in need of correction. Such habitual abusers cannot be dialogued with, they can only be exposed and contained. The real discussion on such from henceforth, therefore, is what to do about such, who are a patent threat to civil dialogue, and to much more than civil dialogue in our civilisation. So, P, you will understand why save under very exceptional circumstances, I will not be visiting the fever swamps to try to have a civil dialogue with the patently uncivil. There has been a full year's opportunity to engage issues on the merits, just look here, but it is patent that the uncivil have no such intention. So, sorry, it is your side that have decided by persistent uncivil and outright abusive behaviour that they do not want civil dialogue; kindly, do not try to twist this about to now accuse me -- "he hit back first" is its own refutation. G'day. KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Indeed, at the website that you allude to, the administrators and participants allude to my question many times without providing a response, laboring endlessly over the irrelevant subject of quantum mechanics.
Well having read that thread it seems pretty clear to me that quantum mechanics are quite relevant. However, I am beginning to suspect that you wish to wave it away because you are ill qualified to argue on those grounds.
Perhaps you would like to step up and answer the question.
As I have said, I was just interested in reading the discussion between the various participants. I don't pretend to knowledge I don't possess. I do, however, have enough education, to differentiate betweens someone speaking from a place of knowledge and someone blowing smoke. You have no cause to be belligerent towards me and I am offended that you would so easily strike such a tone. I guess I will just head over to Dr. Liddle's place and observe over there. There is something slightly embarassing about watching someone claim victory in an argument with an empty chair.ben h
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
--ben h: "I just don’t get why you and StephenB refuse to participate there where you might actually be able to interact with ES." I, for one, have already interacted with eisengate many times. He refuses to answer my questions and ignores my refutations, just as he refused to answer Barry's question on my behalf. Indeed, at the website that you allude to, the administrators and participants allude to my question many times without providing a response, laboring endlessly over the irrelevant subject of quantum mechanics. After over 100 posts on this present thread, no one has been courteous enough to address the matter. I am only interesting in interacting with those who dialogue in good faith. Perhaps you would like to step up and answer the question.StephenB
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Petrushka: you have presented a point made by SB as though it were made by me. Having noted that, the issue is not tunnelling, but existence. Sure, we can work out odds that a macro-object would break through a potential barrier, the answer will be all but zero, given the correspondence principle. The discovery that small enough objects could break through wells they did not officially have energy enough to climb, was one of the shocker discoveries for q-mech and the microscale; though it is also related to the possibility of transfer of light waves across a barrier, yes there is a classical tunnelling case and it has to do with things like frustrated total internal reflection by bringing a surface close enough; again, we see WAVE properties in action. But that is distractive yet again, the actual question on the table is not a quantum question but a metaphysical one: can the planet Jupiter be and not be in the same sense, time and place? Y/N, and why so. KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
--Petrushka: "The calculations can be done, and the probabilities are finite. Here’s a reference to the calculation of tunnelling for an ordinary macro object. In this case, the calculation that a penny balanced on edge will spontaneously fall over." Calculations about tunneling have absolutely nothing to do with the logical question on the table. Perhaps you will step up and answer the question: Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time and in the sense? Yes or No.StephenB
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
I am pretty sure that ES has ample opportunity to respond, and I am pretty sure as well that there are any number who could take things up here as well.
Well, that is the rub, isn't it? ES has been banned and Barry has stated, in comment 84, that he will not let any surrogate comment for him either. As far as abusive sites, I certainly understand with regard to one site. But, Dr. Liddle's site is hardly what I would call abusive. In fact, one of the regulars here, William Murray, is a regular participant at The Skeptical Zone. I just don't get why you and StephenB refuse to participate there where you might actually be able to interact with ES.ben h
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: ES, EL, CH, and other materialist/Darwinists insist that the logic for micro events is DIFFERENT from the logic of macro events. They may not, therefore, appeal to micro events (quantum mechanics) as a means of answering my question about a macro event.
Sure they can. The calculations can be done, and the probabilities are finite. Here's a reference to the calculation of tunnelling for an ordinary macro object. In this case, the calculation that a penny balanced on edge will spontaneously fall over.
This estimated lifetime is an inconceivably large number, not only stretching the powers of our imagination but also pushing the limits of decent mathematical notation. The lifetime of this upright penny against the force of thermal agitation is not merely a number with 13 zeros after it but a number with 10^13 zeros after it! In practical terms this number is an extremely good approximation for "forever". Balanced on its edge, perturbed only by thermal agitation, the penny will never fall.
http://quantumtantra.com/penny.htmlPetrushka
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: ES, EL, CH, and other materialist/Darwinists insist that the logic for micro events is DIFFERENT from the logic of macro events. They may not, therefore, appeal to micro events (quantum mechanics) as a means of answering my question about a macro event. Granted, your explanation about the relationship between reason's rules and QM was superb in every way and it fulfills a desperate need. However, I want these folks to answer the question AS ASKED.StephenB
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
--ben h: "Well, I am no physicist, but it seems that ES has answered in what I saw over at Dr. Liddle’s site." ES has NOT answered the question, and it has nothing to do with physics. Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense? Any rational person can easily answer the question, without equivocation, without fanfare, and without appealing to irrelevant subjects such as quantum mechanics.StephenB
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
BH: A moment. I am pretty sure that ES has ample opportunity to respond, and I am pretty sure as well that there are any number who could take things up here as well. FYI, EVERY event here is closely monitored. And, the prob is, some of those follower sites are so abusive that those who involved themselves there are tainted; soon enough I will make a comment on that. ES seems to have posted his primary response there at one of those abusive sites. As for the debate over what he posted to this thread or did not, let's just say that it is possible something went wrong, to be charitable. I decided to spend a bit of time yesterday evening to go through his response point by point, as you can see. The most that I can see is that some cases of the sort of superposed outcomes that are common even with classical waves and are used in organic chemistry to explain things like the benzine molecule, or the carboxylic acid functional group, may be happening. But a superposition is not a contradiction, not in the relevant sense. For sure, a "paddle" that is vibrating at an intermediate frequency is vibrating, not both vibrating and not vibrating. A circuit with a current that is explicable on mixing modes is no more a contradiction than that several sounds can pass through the same body of air at the same time. Where there may be a surprise is that we seem to be seeing superposed-mode outcomes, but then, the particle beam double slit experiment has always been known to be a superposed outcome. That's why there has been talk of "wavicles." And equally, ever since Einstein, Bohr and co, when theoretical physicists got up to scratch on their proverbial chalk-boards, the mathematics of quantum theory -- the symbols, the combinations, the operations, the relationships are through and through riddled with reliance on the first principles of right reason. And quantum uncertainty in the location of Jupiter is negligible. As to the notion that quantum theory can ground the idea that Jupiter does and does not exist in same sense at same time, I don't think that is even on the cards, given the correspondence principle on how q- results trend to classical ones as scales go tot the right level. KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
What is wierd is that after all this fuss you and your colleages
My colleagues? I am not quite sure what you mean by that. I am just me, a lurker interested in following a discussion. I am a frequent reader, but infrequent poster here.
regardless of where the discussion takes place, still refuse to answer the question.
Well, I am no physicist, but it seems that ES has answered in what I saw over at Dr. Liddle's site. I also see that kairosfocus has provided a response and directs responders here, where the most appropriate responder is forbidden to participate. I would never question a fellow brother in Christ's honesty, so I am sure there is a good reason to not directly engage ES mano a mano. But, another onlooker might not interpret it so generously.ben h
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
--ben h: "Yet, none of those responses are the very one this thread was presumably created for. If you aren’t a gifted multi-tasker, why not move the discussion temporarily over to The Skeptical Zone? Spending 115 comments now discussing a person not allowed to respond and not allowed to participate is unproductive and just a little weird." What is wierd is that after all this fuss you and your colleages, regardless of where the discussion takes place, still refuse to answer the question.StephenB
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
F/N: I have added a note on logic to the mark-up (as well as Dr Quantum's video, 12 minute version with flatland and a charming circle), and a link to IEP on paraconsistent logic. KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Okay, We are about to embark on the terror fitted depths of paraconsistnt and fuzzy logic frames of thought, folks. (Problem being, we are looking already at the fundamental issue that if we assert X true then we are not also asserting X false.) I suggest a survey tutorial here, lest we be blinded and snowed by "science," so called. What I will say coming out the starting gates that a logic that defines an ideal range for a variable, and then a band in which the variable grades up, is not an incoherent concfept. And that is the heart of fuzzy logic. Notice, we have say a given temp of a part that affects function, and can blend responses to its being at several ideal values through a weighted average of some kind to give a good control input. At no point in this little exercise of fuzzy logic control, have we asserted A and NOT-A, never mind colourful representations like, a certain temp T is for this controller to be acted on by blending 30% cold, 10% warm, 1% hot, or the like. Similarly, in a lesser of evils situation, where we know that each option is a bad, but some are worse, e.g. how do we stop German ball bearing production, knowing that B 17's at this time have no viable long range escort, that many in and around the plant at Schweinfurt are civilians, that bombing is rather apt to be smeared out never mind the Norden Bomb sight's performance under ideal circumstances, and given that unless someone stops the new wave of German tanks and other equipment dependent on the ball bearings, a LOT more people are going to die. Yes, we face moral dilemmas and choices of the bad and the worse, but that is not the same as saying that A AND NOT_A ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY SO IN THE SAME SENSE. Likewise, when we shoot electrons at double slits, even slowing down rates until one at a time goes, we get an interference pattern save when we try to identify the slit the electron passes through, in which case we get a marbles and slots pattern. Some sort of superposition of possibilities is credibly occurring, and we have matter-waves. That means that our particles vs waves view of teh world is not applicable to sufficiently small systems, and we can show that we have a fuzzy spectrum that brings us tothe classic view asymptotically for big enough systems. We even have the situation of molecular orbitals theory that leads to the concept that organic molecules have superposed hybrid orbitals that are delocalised. Indeed, it is conventional wisdom that we do not have orbits like planets around the sun, but smeared out wavelike orbitals. Statistical distributions, probabilities, matter waves, uncertainty, entanglement and chance are in the door, like or lump it. But none of that translates into: A AND NOT_A ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY SO IN THE SAME SENSE. And, going further, the very fact that we reason and are not determined on chance distributions and mechanical necessity implies that we have responsible mindedness. In short, let us pause and rethink carefully before we swallow the notion that A and its denial are simultaneously true, must be allowed into our thought world, never mind the implications that we lose ability to discern true and false. Have fun looking at paraconsistent logics and speculations connected thereto, but appreciate the cost price paid in terms of what has to be done to block the explosive loss of ability to discern truth and falsity. But in so doing, notice how carefully the reasoning process involved adheres to . . . LNC, LEM etc. (Much, as I pointed out at what is now 61, how those who claim QM for dismissing LNC, are forced to live by LNC etc in their mathematics.) KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
I won’t speak for others, but frankly I have enough trouble keeping up with what happens on UD. However, by all means, bring up whatever you like in this thread if you’ve got questions or arguments about the LNC. We’re at what – 104 responses?
Yet, none of those responses are the very one this thread was presumably created for. If you aren't a gifted multi-tasker, why not move the discussion temporarily over to The Skeptical Zone? Spending 115 comments now discussing a person not allowed to respond and not allowed to participate is unproductive and just a little weird.ben h
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
CY: I marked this problem up before? Totally forgot! I'll bet I said much the same last time around too. Let's not forget, in a quantum double slit expt, with the rate tuned down so only one particle at a tie is emitted, SOMETHING is superposing and giving rise to a pattern such that the cumulative effect is of an interference pattern. Wavicles, it has been called. And of course superposition is a characteristic wave phenomenon. The classic Copenhagen interpretation is that the waves are linked to probabilities. And as a result, we have real chance injected into physics. (The Dr Quantum video is instructive.) KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
Hey, we are back to numbers in chronosequence, YAY!kairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
To Axel @ 77 A: Would ‘muddy’ the picture be more accurate? The impression I get – not a criticism – is that you are all trying to tease out whether ostensibly contradictory propositions are paradoxes or oxymorons? Would that be correct? Sure, that's one way to look at it. Is QM truly governed by LNC? Or is it perhaps genuinely governed by some kind of "paraconsistent" logic where LNC does not hold? I believe the question is still an open one. To my mind, quantum weirdness -- like nonlocality and superpositions of inconsistent states -- do significant damage to the materialist view of mind, consciousness and reality. So I'm not really sure why so many here appear to side with the materialists on this subject. Just my 2c. Cheers.CLAVDIVS
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
So, the quantum-wave, shadow/duppy* Barry is asymptotically identical to the real world Barry? *In J/can folklore the duppy [comparable to ghost] comes from the shadow . . .kairosfocus
February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
News:
Bruce David, usefulness is a criterion that matters if you need to determine whether the waking state and the dream state should have equal priority. The waking state recognizes, assesses, and interprets the dream state; not the reverse. So when we prioritize the waking state as a source of information, we find it useful. Information about rocks gained in the waking state meant that in the dream state, you expected the rock to hurt. The reason dreams seem so real at the time is that he relationship between the dream state and the waking state is hierarchical. the former depends on the latter for the content of its reveries and can only reflect on the latter in a symbolic way.
The point of my comment was that there is no way to determine empirically or by any other means that one is not dreaming at this moment. The movies, The Matrix and Vanilla Sky played on this fundamental "problem". What this points up is the fact, and it is a fact, that the only source of knowledge that we have of the existence of a physical world "out there" is our sense impressions, which exist entirely within our minds. If this reality we inhabit is actually virtual reality a la The Matrix, or, as I hold, created and orchestrated by God, or if we are all in a dream right now, there is absolutely no test that can reliably verify or refute that condition. Given this state of affairs, given the apparently fundamental inextricable interconnection between quantum reality and a conscious observer, given the fact that there is no way that anyone can even imagine how a physical object such as a brain could give rise to qualia, or conversely, how a non-corporeal substance (spirit or soul) could possibly influence physical matter, and given the innumerable documented and scientifically verified instances in which consciousness appears to violate physical laws, including having the capacity to perceive future events, my conclusion is that the only internally consistent metaphysical position in which all these anomalies can be explained and in which all experience is accounted for is that the reality which we appear to inhabit is in fact a kind of virtual reality in which God assumes the role of the computer that controls the virtual reality so that all our perceptions are coordinated in such a way that it seems we all inhabit the same reality. I and Bishop Berkeley are not the only ones to have reached this conclusion. Richard Thompson, a Ph.D. mathematician who has done research in Quantum Mechanics has written a book, Maya: the World as Virtual Reality which brings Berkeley's ideas into sync with modern physics. Bruce Gordon reaches the same conclusion in his essay, "A Quantum Theoretic Argument against Naturalism" in The Nature of Nature. There are also a number of quantum physicists who have reached this conclusion as well. And lest I be accused of an appeal to authority, I do not claim that the support of these thinkers makes my position true, only that it is a valid intellectual position, that the support of a number of intellectually gifted, knowledgeable thinkers shields it from being dismissed out of hand as "absurd" or "ridiculous". It is worthy of being taken seriously.Bruce David
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
wow. I see that missing eigenstate's articulate incoherence is something I will have to endure.Upright BiPed
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
KF, Your markup appears to be similar to one you made a year or two ago with regard to the same misunderstanding. It's a keeper.CannuckianYankee
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
My comment at 89 was calculated to be totally absurd and illogical. I simply employed eigenstate's template, as expressed in his answer the question about Jupiter, and plugged in my comments to match the logic he employed.StephenB
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Timbo, it would appear that the LNC is a basic assumption in logic that applies to all forms of it; even that which one would apply to quantum phenomena. We theists believe that God is in the present, past and future (i.e., eternal or timeless). That would seem to some to be a logical absurdity, similar to the odd characteristics found in QM, yet it does not defy the LNC. I find it hard to fathom that anything in physics, quantum or otherwise defies the very basics of our logic. It could be that we don't understand the phenomena to fully understand it; but that does not lead one to assume that it defies logic altogether. It may be that there are properties that defy space and time; yet still maintain adherence to basic principles of logic such as not "not existing and existing at the same time and in the same sense."CannuckianYankee
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Ben, I won't speak for others, but frankly I have enough trouble keeping up with what happens on UD. However, by all means, bring up whatever you like in this thread if you've got questions or arguments about the LNC. We're at what - 104 responses? So clearly there's good activity on this very subject. The questions are interesting, even important. The particular people providing the responses, far less so.nullasalus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply