Ask the materialist...

[ateista]

You claim that reality “cannot be known” so therefore it isn’t determined.

Please observe that it was not the claim. My definition of determinism was (verbatim): “Determinism is the idea that every event is fully determined by the antecedent events. It denies randomness in nature, which is inaccurate in the light of what we know about reality.”

The paragraph you chose to reply to was a side note to show that “omnisicence” is impossible. Because reality is undeterministic, full knowledge is impossible - and not what you alleged me to say - “reality is undeterministic, because it is unpredictable” - which was the direct opposite of what I said.

That is quite a logical step!

It was your step, not mine.

Trying to slip another of your dogmatic 'truths" under the door?

Your style is uneccasarily abrasive and taunting. Difference in opinion does not have to lead to hostility, and every one of your posts has been hostile so far. Fortunately there are quite a few civilized posters around here, I do not have to respond to your posts.

Besides I am not arguing for materialism here, I am trying to explain what materialism is, because of the misconceptions exhibited on these boards.

If matter (okay STEM) is all there is, then what else can possibly ‘determine’ reality besides STEM causation – that is, if STEM is all that exists?

Nothing determines it, because reality is not bound by neat little boxes, with cute little labels on them.

Certainly, you can try to postulate some kind of ‘indeterminate existent causative agents’ and continue to subscribe to materialism, but in the end how is your statement that some agency is not determined by STEM, hence uncertain, and a theist’s position that the ultimate unknown causative Agent is God much different?

It is very different, because the theist’s position postulates something inherently unknowable, thus violating the principle of Occam’s razor.

The only difference I see is that you simply want to categorically deny God’s existence and merely claim, for quite an unscientific reason - your faith in the assumption that everything is matter – that some qualities of STEM will ultimately be found to be the unknown causative agents. Have faith baby!

I don’t want to deny God’s existence. I see no need for the hypothesis.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

The Schnahbster asked:

Between the “time” right before the Big Bang, when there just the Singularity, and the present, has any stuff been added (i.e. New Stuff which didn’t exist at the beginning)?

Ateista replied:

Sure has, a lot. Humans, for example.

and crow added:

The arrangement of the matter and energy has changed, at least in terms of how humans define, observe and measure same. But nothing new has appeared abracadabra, if that is what you mean.

yeah, that’s what I meant. To get to its present state, has the stuff the Universe started with just gotten rearranged?

 

[OTavern]

The paragraph you chose to reply to was a side note to show that “omnisicence” is impossible. Because reality is undeterministic, full knowledge is impossible - and not what you alleged me to say - “reality is undeterministic, because it is unpredictable” - which was the direct opposite of what I said.

It is very different, because the theist’s position postulates something inherently unknowable, thus violating the principle of Occam’s razor.

I don’t want to deny God’s existence. I see no need for the hypothesis.

So what is it that makes reality “undeterministic” and therefore “unknowable?”

It could well be that the undeterministic nature of reality is because of a Cosmic Causitive Agent with “free will,” therefore because He wills the undetermined elements, He could thereby know them. Hence you would be mistaken to claim that “Because reality is undeterministic, full knowledge is impossible.” The alternative is that God exists, wills reality to be undeterministic (to us) but still has full knowledge. You have not proven that God’s existence is impossible, but quite reasonable, in fact.

By the way, don’t take my abrasive comments personally, I enjoy getting others passionately involved in what they hold to be true. :extrahappy:

 

[ateista]

yeah, that’s what I meant. To get to its present state, has the stuff the Universe started with just gotten rearranged?

Well, there are some theories that electron-positron pairs “pop” simultaeously and then annihilate each other. Stephen Hawking theorizes that if that happen very close to a black hole, then it might happen that one of them gets “sucked in” and we shall have a “surplus” electron. Who knows if he is right?

There is the principle of matter-energy preservation, which says that matter-energy cannot be created of destroyed. Of course, it may be incorrect - as any laws of nature are subject to revision if there is suffient reason to do so. This particular principle seems to be very well established, but that is not a 100% certainty.

So we can safely say, that according to our current level of knowledge, the “stuff” which started its current configuration with the Big Bang is “what we have”. Its structure has changed of course.

 

[ateista]

So what is it that makes reality “undeterministic” and therefore “unknowable?”

According to our knowledge it is inherent in the structure of STEM.

It could well be that the undeterministic nature of reality is because of a Cosmic Causitive Agent with “free will,” therefore because He wills the undetermined elements, He could thereby know them. Hence you would be mistaken to claim that “Because reality is undeterministic, full knowledge is impossible.” The alternative is that God exists, wills reality to be undeterministic (to us) but still has full knowledge.

Sure it could be. Just like it could be that the universe is a mere 6000 years old, and all the dinosaur bones were place there by God, just to confuse us. But I doubt it, because I think that playing childish games of deliberate deception is somehow beneath the dignity of an all-powerful creator. As you are aware I do not believe in God, but my disbelief is respectful.

You have not proven that God’s existence is impossible, but quite reasonable, in fact.

Well, I did not even try. This is not the aim of this thread. You find it reasonable, I find it unnecessary.

By the way, don’t take my abrasive comments personally, I enjoy getting others passionately involved in what they hold to be true. :extrahappy:

OK. Now I know your reasons, and so I have no problem with it. I still think it is not necessary. We can have a pretty fruitful conversation without it, can’t we?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Ateista,

Determinism is the idea that every event is fully determined by the antecedent events. It denies randomness in nature, which is inaccurate in the light of what we know about reality. In Newton’s time the universe was viewed as a giant “clockwork” which follows an unalterable path from the past to the future. That picture was found inaccurate when quantum physics was discovered.

Putting it into another way: determinism holds that having full information about the present and having full knowledge about the laws of nature one can precisely predict the future. Well, that concept was defeated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that the reality in any given time cannot be known “completely”.

Since most materialists accept science, they are not determinists.

So assuming full knowledge of the laws of nature and complete information about the present, the future is not completely predictable. If something can’t be known for certain beforehand, it is because the actor (atom, human being, whatever) has a range of choices in which it could become actualized and the laws of nature do not allow us know beforehand the specific outcome. But once the phenomenon (that which we are trying to predict) happens, it becomes fully determined. Looking back at the all the causal (name removed by moderator)uts and the laws of nature at play, we will be able to fully explain how it happened. Izzat what you are saying? There will be no residue unaccounted for?

 

[ateista]

So assuming full knowledge of the laws of nature and complete information about the present, the future is not completely predictable. If something can’t be known for certain beforehand, it is because the actor (atom, human being, whatever) has a range of choices in which it could become actualized and the laws of nature do not allow us know beforehand the specific outcome. But once the phenomenon (that which we are trying to predict) happens, it becomes fully determined. Looking back at the all the causal (name removed by moderator)uts and the laws of nature at play, we will be able to fully explain how it happened. Izzat what you are saying? There will be no residue unaccounted for?

I think you summed it up beautifully!

There is one minor issue I want to mention for the sake of completeness: according to our current knowledge (which is subject to revision if need be) even the present cannot be fully known, only the past. As long as there is “freedom” in the present in the shape of unresolved possibilities, there can be no full knowledge.

However, this is merely hair-splitting. After all, what is the difference between the “present” and the “past”? A finite but miniscule time difference, which can be as small as the Planck’s constant; though not smaller, if time is indeed “discrete” and not “continuous” - as currently understood.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Why do materialists despretly maintain theories of mind which seem to be almost certainly false?

To paraphrase a well known politician, the ontological reduction of subjective experiences really requires a “willing suspension of disbeleif”

I think Searle is absolutly correct in that materialism has become something of a relgigious like dogma, this feeble attempt to jam clearly real first persone experiences into the materialist mold is unscientific and silly.

 

[ateista]

Why do materialists despretly maintain theories of mind which seem to be almost certainly false?

To paraphrase a well known politician, the ontological reduction of subjective experiences really requires a “willing suspension of disbeleif”

I think Searle is absolutly correct in that materialism has become something of a relgigious like dogma, this **feeble attempt **to jam clearly real first persone experiences into the materialist mold is unscientific and silly.

That is one strange post. “Desperately”? “Seem to be”? “Almost certainly”? “Dogma”? “Feeble attempt”? “Unscientific”? “Silly”?

I wonder what kind of an answer were you expecting?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Ateista,

Is it fair to say that your materialism is “methodological” and not metaphysical? After all, you don’t a priori rule out the possibility of X existence, so you are least agnostic on that account. As you have said, you haven’t seen any proof or evidence for it and see no need to posit X existence, or God for that matter, to account for the world.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Regarding determinism, you reject it because science rejects it. It is an empirical issue. I, however, would reject it not only on empirical grounds but also–and more fundamentally-- on metaphysical grounds. Determinism is necessarily false. We can rule it out a priori.

 

[ateista]

Is it fair to say that your materialism is “methodological” and not metaphysical?

Why not both? Of course I start with physics and then I contemplate metaphysics. If metaphysics does not account for physics, it is just a mental exercise.

After all, you don’t a priori rule out the possibility of X existence, so you are least agnostic on that account. As you have said, you haven’t seen any proof or evidence for it and see no need to posit X existence, or God for that matter, to account for the world.

Correct. I do not rule out a-priori anything. That would be improper on my part, since I am not omniscient. I don’t even rule out the paranormal, I just never saw any compelling evidence for it. All the alleged evidence is either fabrication or can be explained on statistical ground.

The truth is that I had a few psychological tests, and I am happy that my trait of “openness to new ideas” was right off the scale. Considering that I am approaching 62, it is something I am proud of, since most people lose their openness (if they ever had it). I think it is a youthful (or useful ) trait. (I am not so proud that my trait of “conscientiousness” was abysmally low… hehe).

Regarding determinism, you reject it because science rejects it. It is an empirical issue. I, however, would reject it not only on empirical grounds but also–and more fundamentally-- on metaphysical grounds. Determinism is necessarily false. We can rule it out a priori.

I am ok with that - sort of… subject to our tentative understanding that we may have to re-evaluate our positon. But everything points in the direction that determinism is incorrect.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Ateista,

U sed:

I do not rule out a-priori anything. That would be improper on my part, since I am not omniscient.

I think you do. You rule out that you can rule out a-priori some things.

Here’s what I am getting at. There are two contrary positions that folks tend to take: 1) that All Truth is Necessary and 2) that No Truth is Necessary. On the one hand we got the “ultra-rationalistic metaphysicians”, as Voskuil calls them, and on the udder we got the anti-metaphysician crowd (logical positivists).

Often overlooked is the sensible middle position, the correct metaphysical position, that Some Truths are Necessary. Some things we know as true have no possibility of being false.

So if you make “I do not rule out a-priori anything” your metaphysical first principle, then you are holding to a principle that contradicts itself. One doesn’t rule out anything in advance because one believes that everything (i.e. all meaningful propositions) are not necessary. If someone gets up and proclaims X (some meaningful proposition), you think maybe he’s right, but he could be wrong.

But your position (logical positivism, I would think) is self-contradictory. It boils down to this: It is necessarily true that all proposition might be wrong.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

I sed above: One doesn’t rule out anything in advance because one believes that everything (i.e. all meaningful propositions) are not necessary.

To clarify what probbly is a confusing statement… If someone “doesn’t rule out anything in advance,” as you do, it presumably is because he believes that all meaningful propositions are not necessary (that is all meaningful propositions are contingent).

 

[FrankSchnabel]

The truth is that I had a few psychological tests, and I am happy that my trait of “openness to new ideas” was right off the scale. Considering that I am approaching 62, it is something I am proud of, since most people lose their openness (if they ever had it). I think it is a youthful (or useful ) trait. (I am not so proud that my trait of “conscientiousness” was abysmally low… hehe).

Ateista, Ye Aulde Hounde. I, myself, will turn 55 this year, and i can’t wait to enjoy the perquisites of being a seasoned citizen: AARP membership, greater respect, and all those senior discounts! BTW old friend, is there life after 55? Is there sex after 55? (maybe we can’t get into that here.)

But regarding open-mindedness, I am getting more dogmatic as I git on in years.

 

[ateista]

I think you do. You rule out that you can rule out a-priori some things.

Here’s what I am getting at. There are two contrary positions that folks tend to take: 1) that All Truth is Necessary and 2) that No Truth is Necessary. On the one hand we got the “ultra-rationalistic metaphysicians”, as Voskuil calls them, and on the udder we got the anti-metaphysician crowd (logical positivists).

Often overlooked is the sensible middle position, the correct metaphysical position, that Some Truths are Necessary. Some things we know as true have no possibility of being false.

I am confused a bit. You use the word “truth” and “necessary” in a capitalized fashion as if they were some anthropomorphic entities.

To me “truth” equals to correct evaluation of reality or the corollary of some axioms. The differentiation between “necessary” and “contingent” true statements is simple: we speak of “necessary” truths (observe the plural) in an axiomatic system (like mathematics) and speak of “contingent” truths in natural sciences.

But your position (logical positivism, I would think) is self-contradictory. It boils down to this: It is necessarily true that all proposition might be wrong.

My position is nothing of the kind. I believe that reality is complex, and at any moment of time we may discover some new “stuff” which will force us to re-evaluate our understanding of reality.

To clarify the bolded text: “I say that all propositions about reality, which we hold correct (or true) in the light of our existing level of knowledge may prove to be wrong”.

I am sure it is my fault that we have this misunderstanding. I did not stipulate that I am willing to contemplate new ideas, and new discoveries as far as the natural sciences go.

Obviously I am not open to the idea that our proof of the theorem of Pythagoras may be incorrect. In a formal system like matematics we certainly can and do hold some propositions as “necessarily true”.

I hope this clarifies my position. I apologize for not being more precise previously. My only “excuse” is that I was under the impression that we talk about “reality” and not about axiomatic, abstract systems. When I said that I am willing to contemplate the X-existence, I was referring to the evolving field of sciences, where one must be open to new ideas and concepts as our understanding of reality changes.

To clarify what probbly is a confusing statement… If someone “doesn’t rule out anything in advance,” as you do, it presumably is because he believes that all meaningful propositions are not necessary (that is all meaningful propositions are contingent).

Only in the natural sciences.

Ateista, Ye Aulde Hounde. I, myself, will turn 55 this year, and i can’t wait to enjoy the perquisites of being a seasoned citizen: AARP membership, greater respect, and all those senior discounts! BTW old friend, is there life after 55? Is there sex after 55? (maybe we can’t get into that here.)

Hehe, you will find it in due course of events. But I give you a glimmer of hope: even after two heart attacks I can run (pretty much) any underwriter into the ground on a treadmill. And I still have difficulties in getting insurance - and that is a bummer.

But regarding open-mindedness, I am getting more dogmatic as I git on in years.

You are the norm and I am the “freak”. But since in my whole life I hated conformity, that is a direct result of my psychological profile. I love to thumb my nose to the “authorities”, love to disregard stupid, idiotic regulations, etc. So in one word, I am a rebel.

 

[OTavern]

To me “truth” equals to correct evaluation of reality or the corollary of some axioms. The differentiation between “necessary” and “contingent” true statements is simple: we speak of “necessary” truths (observe the plural) in an axiomatic system (like mathematics) and speak of “contingent” truths in natural sciences.

My position is nothing of the kind. I believe that reality is complex, and at any moment of time we may discover some new “stuff” which will force us to re-evaluate our understanding of reality.

I am sure it is my fault that we have this misunderstanding. I did not stipulate that I am willing to contemplate new ideas, and new discoveries as far as the natural sciences go.

The assumption you have grounded yourself in, when you say “truth equals to correct evaluation of reality” is that you, as ‘evaluator’ holds the position of “arbiter of truth,” that truth is not something external to you but dependent upon you and your evaluation. That truth cannot take initiative external to you to “reveal itself” to you, but that you must “allow” it. In other words, you rule out, a priori, the possibility of revelation or inspiration, or that truth can make itself known to you.

If truth ‘appeared’ to you independent of your logical system - broke into your world - it would necessarily be false because it would not connect into your system. In other words, truth is contingent upon you and your logic and by that fact is, necessarily, a subset of your thinking or logical system. Truth is therefore contingent upon you and subjective to you.

Since truth is, to you, a subjective reality, not an objective one, you allow “truth claims” to enter into your thinking, but these only become truth when you allow them to be. By being the arbiter of truth, are you not ruling out the possibility of objective truth? All truth is ‘contingent’ upon you, who are the only ‘necessary’ and “objective” element in your system.

Thus when you say…

… in my whole life I hated conformity, that is a direct result of my psychological profile. I love to thumb my nose to the “authorities”, love to disregard stupid, idiotic regulations, etc. So in one word, I am a rebel.

… you are making it clear that truth depends upon you – is subjective to you – that no objective standard exists outside of you, that you as the arbiter might be wrong about particular truth claims, but ultimately your “position” as arbiter remains firm. In other words you will necessarily and in a priori fashion trust yourself to always adjudge the truth.

Is it possible that you are mistaken in this entire perspective of truth? That reality does not depend upon you, but that you depend upon reality? What if this “self,” this “rebel” that you hold on to, is itself merely an illusion? That this “self” has no credentials for “measuring” the truth and would be better off giving up its delusion to “listen to truth” to “face reality” without any preconceptions or running interference by its own thinking?

Perhaps holding the self up to the scrutiny of reality rather than holding reality up to the scrutiny of self is the correct approach to this.

 

[ateista]

The assumption you have grounded yourself in, when you say “truth equals to correct evaluation of reality” is that you, as ‘evaluator’ holds the position of “arbiter of truth,” that truth is not something external to you but dependent upon you and your evaluation.

It is truly amazing how much misunderstanding can come into these discussions. I said nothing of the kind. As a materialist I accept the existence of the external world and the objectively existeing relationships between the objectively existing objects.

When our mental image of these relationships is in synch with the relationships then we speak of “true” statements. The evaluation is not subjective either. It is done through objective experiments, comparing the predictions with the results. It is as objective as you can get.

That truth cannot take initiative external to you to “reveal itself” to you, but that you must “allow” it. In other words, you rule out, a priori, the possibility of revelation or inspiration, or that truth can make itself known to you.

You use “thruth” as an ontological object. I don’t. Show me that this “truth” you speak of has ontological existence, and I promise you that I will contemplate it. Until you can do that I consider your usage of the word as incorrect.

There is no need to specifically answer the rest of your post, since you just restate your original and incorrect view of how I evaluate “truth” and reality.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

mornin Ateista,

Ateista sed:

To me “truth” equals to correct evaluation of reality or the corollary of some axioms. The differentiation between “necessary” and “contingent” true statements is simple: we speak of “necessary” truths (observe the plural) in an axiomatic system (like mathematics) and speak of “contingent” truths in natural sciences.

You identify two types of propositions, those which describe reality or the real world, and those which are purely logical and depend on accepting certain axioms. Putting these in categories which I find useful, there are then “merely empircal” propositions and those which are “merely rational.”

The truth or falsity of merely empirical propositions depends on facts. The truth falsity of merely rational propositions depends on conformity to stipulated axioms, rules and logic.

Now merely empirical propositions, since they depend on concrete facts, are always contingent. A concrete state of affairs is never necessary. It could always have been different.

Merely rational propositions are only necessarily true in a limited sense, that is within the system of definitions and rules to which we’ve stipulated. But we would not say that they can be necessarily true in a philosphical or metaphysical sense. For example, we can assert a proposition of Euclidian geometry which is “necessarily” true within the Eucilidian system, but which, if we held to non-Euclidian axioms, would not be true.

So we have to conclude that both merely empirical and merely rational propositions are contingent. They cannot be unavoidably true or false.

I’m afraid I’ve run out of time. Gotta walk the dog and get ready to chase a buck.

Happy weekend to you.

FS

Then there are “merely rational” propositions

 

[ateista]

You identify two types of propositions, those which describe reality or the real world, and those which are purely logical and depend on accepting certain axioms. Putting these in categories which I find useful, there are then “merely empircal” propositions and those which are “merely rational.”

Agreed.

The truth or falsity of merely empirical propositions depends on facts. The truth falsity of merely rational propositions depends on conformity to stipulated axioms, rules and logic.

Agreed.

Now merely empirical propositions, since they depend on concrete facts, are always contingent. A concrete state of affairs is never necessary. It could always have been different.

Pretty much agreed. I think that the laws of nature are what they are. The concept of “necessary” or “contingent” are simply not applicable here.

Merely rational propositions are only necessarily true in a limited sense, that is within the system of definitions and rules to which we’ve stipulated. But we would not say that they can be necessarily true in a philosphical or metaphysical sense. For example, we can assert a proposition of Euclidian geometry which is “necessarily” true within the Eucilidian system, but which, if we held to non-Euclidian axioms, would not be true.

Indeed, in most of the cases, we can arbitrarily choose some axioms, and see what kind of corollaries they might have. But this does not apply to all axiomatic systems.

The law of identity (A is A, or everything is itself) is not an arbitrary choice, which we could discard and substitute with something else. The same applies to the other laws of logic. They cannot be replaced by other axioms. In that sense they are “necessary”.

So we have to conclude that both merely empirical and merely rational propositions are contingent. They cannot be unavoidably true or false.

I still don’t think that the dichotomy of “necessary” vs. “contingent” truth has any value. Or, putting into a different format, the separation of truths into the buckets of “necessary” and “contingent” is not “necessary”.

I’m afraid I’ve run out of time. Gotta walk the dog and get ready to chase a buck.

Happy weekend to you.

And a happy and productive weekend to you.

Then there are “merely rational” propositions

I hope you will pick this one up when you return.