Are we rational or irrational?

[tonyrey]

In general, synergy refers to the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. However, since I do not have an UK dictionary on hand, my suggestion is to try this link or similar ones. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy

Naturally, you are welcome to disagree with the word synergy. I gladly accept a variety of ideas.

Thanks for the link. It seems that synergy arises from a system with

“a set of interrelated components working together with a common objective: fulfilling some designated need.” (My emphasis.)

An objective presupposes a reference to a future state - which amounts to purposeful activity even though it may not be conscious. %between%

 

[jonfawkes]

The great mathematician and philosopher Leibniz had a similar idea in his theory of monads but it lacks the support of evidence.

I read an wiki article - it’s interesting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology I’m going to look into it more.

I think it’s much easier to tie into Catholic thought through the notion of omnipresence. If God is everywhere, He’s in the atom. So the atom at some level must be rational, if the notion of omnipresence is true.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Of course I was. The church “claims” that the church is infallible in the matter of faith and morals. Is that an infallible claim? According to the dogma it is. See here… Section VI.13 “In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible”. So we have that poor little dog chasing its poor little tail.

Certainly is a dog-tail situation in the way you have described it. Fortunately, that is wrong because your theology is terrible at best. The Word of God gave His Church infallible. Nothing can make itself something by its own merit. If the Word of God IS Truth, then He did not “make” Himself infallible. He cannot be wrong. No circles here. Of course, you disagree with all of this because you do not believe in God. So, can we stay off the topic of theology and the Bible like a conversation between a Catholic and Atheist should be? (Unless honesty is involved. It is clearly not in this case.)

Omnipotence is not defined in a rigorous manner. Once upon a time it was defined as “omnipotence can do literally anything” - even logically contradictory things (and some people still cling to that definition). When people realized how nonsensical that definition was, they changed it and now it says: “omnipotence can do anything that can be done”. Which is an empty definition, unless you can find out what are those things that “can be done”. Now to find out what are the things that “can be done”, you need omniscience, which is another ill-defined concept.

All those definitions you gave are indeed empty definitions. Again, fortunately, your theology is wrong. Although, this is more of philosophy (rightly so), so we can work together on this. Omnipotence does not mean that the being can do whatever imaginary action the human mind can think up; it just means that the being can do anything that does not imply a contradiction. A contradiction is exactly what you have been trying to force my belief to adhere to. It is not because the being’s power is limited, it is because it is logically impossible as you said. Situations that are logically impossible for an omnipotent being to do are, by definion, imaginary.

(Omniscience is to “know everything that can be known” - so the next questions is: “what can be known” - which leads to a circular problem.)

Admittedly, I do not know much about omniscience. It is not circular though. One would think that “what can be known” is already known by this omniscient being, but apparently not you. The fact that WE cannot answer is it does not mean an omniscient being cannot. This is the best I can do though in regards to omniscience. I have no definition for it.

I wish you had spent some time on the problem of creating a temperature of minus one Kelvin. It is a physical constraint, so presumably God can violate it. But it is nonsense. Temperature is the Brownian motion of molecules (physics here again). At zero Kelvin the motion stops. So what happens at minus one Kelvin? What you don’t realize is that every logical contradiction expresses a physically impossible state of affairs.

Why do you wish that? You assume I have never thought about it. As an atheist, I figured out why it is an absurd positing to ask ridiculous questions like that. This is why I said, “No need to.” You also assume I am troglodyte when it comes to Physics and Philosophy. You assume I have never heard of Michio Kaku, Albert Einstein, Brian Greene, etc… (the list is endless) or much less read them. You assume that you are educating me when in fact I knew this years ago in my studies of Physics which WAS a major of mine in undergraduate. Granted this does not mean that I know everything (or even a little at that). But, please have more respect for me. Trust that I know as much as you do and trust that I will tell you if I do not know something. I may not be the most humble but I am humble enough to admit ignorance on a subject. I am also humble enough to admit when the person I am arguing with is right and I wrong.

Therefore to say that God can violate the laws of physics also says that God can violate of laws of logic, too - which brings us back to the original problem.

See above. You assume WAY too much. Your own cross-analysis is circular. “God is not omnipotent because he cannot do everything I think up.” Here is what you seem to think omnipotence means: Omnipotence can do anything and everything; this means that a logical impossibility is not logically impossible. Your reasoning is bad, very bad.

Take care buddy.

 

[Spock]

Certainly is a dog-tail situation in the way you have described it. Fortunately, that is wrong because your theology is terrible at best. The Word of God gave His Church infallible. Nothing can make itself something by its own merit. If the Word of God IS Truth, then He did not “make” Himself infallible. He cannot be wrong. No circles here. Of course, you disagree with all of this because you do not believe in God. So, can we stay off the topic of theology and the Bible like a conversation between a Catholic and Atheist should be? (Unless honesty is involved. It is clearly not in this case.)

We are talking past each other. There is a stopping point in what you say, so that is not what is circular. It is either an empty claim, or it can be substantiated.

The circle is the catholic underpinning of its claims. The church “claims” that God gave it the attribute of infallibility. And how does the church substantiate this claim? By referring to its own alleged infallibility. That is the circle I am talking about. And that circle is not better than to utter an unsubstantiated claim, like you did above.

Omnipotence does not mean that the being can do whatever imaginary action the human mind can think up; it just means that the being can do anything that does not imply a contradiction.

Even that is not true. Supposedly God is unable to lie. To lie is not a logical contradiction, yet God is unable to do it. God is not able to make our “immortal” souls to disappear. That would not be a logical contradiction either. As a matter of fact the word “omnipotence” is falling out of favor; most people use “maxipotence” instead. And that is just another ill-defined concept - something along the lines that “maxipotence is the ability to do everything that can be done”. Since we don’t know what can be done and what cannot be done, the phrase “maxipotent” is meaningless.

Admittedly, I do not know much about omniscience.

It is improperly defined, therefore meaningless. The dogmatic definiton is “to know everything, past, peresent and future, whether actual of hypothetical”. (See the list of dogmas: Dogmas… Section I.24 to section I.29) That definition leads to nonsense, like: “God knows the contents of the book, which was never written, because the writer was never born”. This is included in the dogma, since the writer could have been born, and could have written a book. But not even believers will accept that. God himself cannot “know” what does not exist, what has never existed and will never exist.

 

[You]

… God himself cannot “know” what does not exist, what has never existed and will never exist.

Since it is He who brings into existance things which do not exist, He knows beforehand what He will create; and since His eternal will also has the quality of the eternal now, then He always knows what He will create.

 

[Spock]

Since it is He who brings into existance things which do not exist, He knows beforehand what He will create; and since His eternal will also has the quality of the eternal now, then He always knows what He will create.

To “know” something is to have information about something that exists - which is different from “imagining” something that does not exist - the nonsense of “eternal now” notwithstanding.

 

[inocente]

A temperature which could freeze atoms does not just stop when it has just frozen the atoms, it is free to continue descending forever if it wishes, it is just that our human instruments will no longer be able to measure it beyond a certain point.

I am a reputable source … remove more energy the molecule stops jiggling, it freezes; remove more energy, the molecule breaks down into atoms and so on down until there is nothing left, no more energy.

What you’re proposing wouldn’t lower the temperature, it would just remove matter from the system, you’d be left with a smaller system at the same absolute zero temperature. But it would be novel to get steam then plasma by making ice ever colder, sounds a little weird. And you can’t cite yourself dude, it doesn’t work like that. Ready to stop anytime you are.

 

[inocente]

I bet they don’t explain consciousness. If they did it would be in the headlines!

Then you didn’t watch the videos yet? I took time and trouble to find them for you because it would need a lot of writing to explain the basic concepts. I can’t respond to you while we’re on different hymnsheets. When you appreciate the stunning complexity of a tree, and then how mind-bogglingly more complicated we are, you can begin to understand why this subject has confounded philosophers for so long.

No response!

See above.

If all our thoughts are caused by molecular activity they are beyond our control and there is no guarantee they are reliable - and we cannot even choose the most reasonable conclusion. There are countless ways of being mistaken but only one way of being right.

We are our thoughts. And we’re not perfect, as I understand it Catholic theology says only God is perfect. Here I’d point you to, for example, redundancy techniques in information systems, e.g. in mobile phone communications. A reliable system doesn’t rely on perfection, it depends on detecting and correcting errors in real time.

 

[inocente]

synergy

I went off that word as it gets banded around a lot in my circle, along with paradigm , empowerment , blue sky thinking and so on.

 

[tonyrey]

I read an wiki article - it’s interesting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology I’m going to look into it more.

I think it’s much easier to tie into Catholic thought through the notion of omnipresence. If God is everywhere, He’s in the atom. So the atom at some level must be rational, if the notion of omnipresence is true.

God’s omnipresence is necessary for things to exist given that they cannot exist by themselves “under their own steam”. But He chooses to be present in them in different ways. All created things share in God’s creative power by their ability to cause change. We do so for a reason, animals by instinct and inanimate objects through physical laws. There is no evidence that atoms have free will or responsibility whereas when we make a decision the buck stops with us. They can be regarded as rational in the sense that they form part of a rational system which is orderly and predictable. If the universe were chaotic they would be irrational!

 

[jonfawkes]

God’s omnipresence is necessary for things to exist given that they cannot exist by themselves “under their own steam”. But He chooses to be present in them in different ways. All created things share in God’s creative power by their ability to cause change. We do so for a reason, animals by instinct and inanimate objects through physical laws. There is no evidence that atoms have free will or responsibility whereas when we make a decision the buck stops with us. They can be regarded as rational in the sense that they form part of a rational system which is orderly and predictable. If the universe were chaotic they would be irrational!

So your first premise is flawed - no?

 

[You]

What you’re proposing wouldn’t lower the temperature, it would just remove matter from the system, you’d be left with a smaller system at the same absolute zero temperature. But it would be novel to get steam then plasma by making ice ever colder, sounds a little weird. And you can’t cite yourself dude, it doesn’t work like that. Ready to stop anytime you are.

Yes, it would get colder. If cold is a measure of energy. Imagine, if there were nothing in existence, how much energy you must first create before you create molecules. In other words consider how much energy you need before you arrive at 0K.
Just because the scale stops at 0 doesn’t mean there is no energy left in the system to lose.

As you, me and spock are the only people in the universe discussing this right now, I cite ourselves as sources.

 

[You]

To “know” something is to have information about something that exists - which is different from “imagining” something that does not exist - the nonsense of “eternal now” notwithstanding.

Before you create something you need to know everything about it, or in His case, it is whatever He wills it to be.
Why is the eternal now nonsense. Time is joined to matter and matter to space. Time is the change experienced by matter moving through space. Spock was at point A but now the universe has expanded more and Spock is now at point B. The measured difference between moving or changing from point A to point B is time.
But what happens when Spock moves to a point where there is no matter or no space, perhaps like to the age before the Big Bang; - then, when Spock is outside of space and matter he is also not subject to time. He does not ‘move’ or ‘change’, there is no time. Everything is now!..:hypno: eternally now…

 

[jonfawkes]

Before you create something you need to know everything about it,

This is categorically false -

As example no one knows anything about their children (other than they will be human) before they are created.

Works of art are another, through creation they are discovered and known.

Creating a theory, Creating a culinary dish etc etc

Rarely (if ever) do we know what the final product will be when creating. Creation is one thing, replication another.

 

[inocente]

Yes, it would get colder. If cold is a measure of energy. Imagine, if there were nothing in existence, how much energy you must first create before you create molecules. In other words consider how much energy you need before you arrive at 0K.
Just because the scale stops at 0 doesn’t mean there is no energy left in the system to lose.

As you, me and spock are the only people in the universe discussing this right now, I cite ourselves as sources.

I’ve not read through any of these, but they may help you:

web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/
puccini.che.pitt.edu/~karlj/Classes/CHE2101/
physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/Thermodynamics.htm

Spock was at point A but now the universe has expanded more and Spock is now at point B. The measured difference between moving or changing from point A to point B is time.

Reading a little relativity may be in order here.

But what happens when Spock moves to a point where there is no matter or no space, perhaps like to the age before the Big Bang; - then, when Spock is outside of space and matter he is also not subject to time. He does not ‘move’ or ‘change’, there is no time. Everything is now!..:hypno: eternally now…

Also some cosmology and topology, assuming a basic knowledge of set theory of course.

Try the good folk over at physicsforums.com/

 

[You]

This is categorically false -

As example no one knows anything about their children (other than they will be human) before they are created.

They are procreated, does that make a difference?

Works of art are another, through creation they are discovered and known.

Maybe art is not created until it is finished, and the act of creation is the ‘before’.

Creating a theory, Creating a culinary dish etc etc

Rarely (if ever) do we know what the final product will be when creating. Creation is one thing, replication another.

Well, allowing for serendipity, we tend to know in advance what we want to do.

 

[You]

I’ve not read through any of these, but they may help you:

web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/
puccini.che.pitt.edu/~karlj/Classes/CHE2101/
physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/Thermodynamics.htm

Reading a little relativity may be in order here.

Also some cosmology and topology, assuming a basic knowledge of set theory of course.

Try the good folk over at physicsforums.com/

Thats all very well, but since this is the Philosophy forum I can be right if I want to be…

 

[jonfawkes]

They are procreated, does that make a difference?

Well, I’m pretty good… but I’ve never been paid

 

[lemondiesel]

1. Atomic particles are not rational.
2. If we consist **solely **of atomic particles we cannot be rational.
3. If we are not rational we cannot know anything.
4. But then we cannot know we consist **solely **of atomic particles!
5. Therefore materialism must be false.

I think this is the fallacy of composition where you are assuming that the qualities of the whole are the same as or limited by the qualities of the parts. The sum can be greater than the parts.

1. Atomic particles are not visible to the naked eye.
2. We consist solely of atomic particles.
3. We are not visible to the naked eye.

It’s worth noting that assuming what is true of the parts is also true of the whole is not inherently a fallacy, but it depends on what qualities are being discussed.

Would it be to ‘stonerish’ of me to ask, What if the purpose of atomic particles was rationality and reason?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Even that is not true. Supposedly God is unable to lie. To lie is not a logical contradiction, yet God is unable to do it. God is not able to make our “immortal” souls to disappear. That would not be a logical contradiction either. As a matter of fact the word “omnipotence” is falling out of favor; most people use “maxipotence” instead. And that is just another ill-defined concept - something along the lines that “maxipotence is the ability to do everything that can be done”. Since we don’t know what can be done and what cannot be done, the phrase “maxipotent” is meaningless.

So, if Spock does not understand it, then it is meaningless. I understand what you are trying to say here. Can we move on?

Let us put a lie in the category of sin. God lying IS a logical contradiction. If He IS Goodness, then, by definition of what lying is, lying would contradict Himself. Again, it is not because His power is limited, it is because it would be a logical contradiction. As even you would agree, “Truth cannot contradict Truth”. Seems like you do not know much about our belief as you had hoped.

Admittedly, I cannot answer your assertion that “God is not able to make our ‘immortal’ souls to disappear.” But, in any case, how do you know that? (Honest question.)

And I have never heard nor do I have any clue what “maxipotent” means. I would rather you not “educate” me on it because you have been wrong with omnipotence, omniscience and infallibility so far. We can just discard this part because I have no clue.

It is improperly defined, therefore meaningless. The dogmatic definiton is “to know everything, past, peresent and future, whether actual of hypothetical”. (See the list of dogmas: Dogmas… Section I.24 to section I.29) That definition leads to nonsense, like: “God knows the contents of the book, which was never written, because the writer was never born”. This is included in the dogma, since the writer could have been born, and could have written a book. But not even believers will accept that. God himself cannot “know” what does not exist, what has never existed and will never exist.

So, if Spock does not understand it, then it is meaningless. “Respect” is ill-defined. “Life” is ill-defined. “Love” is definitely ill-defined, even more so than “omniscience”. Even “person” is ill-defined.

Music itself is ill-defined (“Pitch organized into rhythm”). Is it meaningless? You are assuming that because we cannot fully define a term, it is meaningless. Omniscience, omnipotence, etc… are indeed ill-defined because of our limited understand. To say that something is ill-defined and therefore meaningless, is to know that that definition is its fullest possible explanation and therefore not ill-defined if that is indeed what it actually means; it is just percieved as ill-defined because it does not satisfy our curiosity to know everything. You fail to realize that I am right with you in its “ill-definition” right up until you mention that something ill-defined is meaningless. I would not defend what I thought was meaningless.

Are you claiming to “know” that omniscience does not exist according to the definition that “God himself cannot ‘know’ what does not exist, what has never existed and will never exist”? You yourself are claiming to “know” what you think “does not exist, what has never existed and will never exist.”

In the link you provided me with, I did not see “…whether actual of hypothetical.” I will give you the benefit of the doubt that that was either your mistake or that I did not see it in the site. For now, I will discard the rest of the your statement because I am taking a large leap of faith here in granting that it was an honest mistake by either you or me. You said “I.24 to section I.29” and I looked all around and could not find that.

Continued…