Ask the materialist...

[Sarpedon]

Ateista,

I’ll respond to you, but I need to get ready now for a week long vacation (starting tomorrow).

 

[ateista]

Ateista,

I’ll respond to you, but I need to get ready now for a week long vacation (starting tomorrow).

Have a wonderful time !!

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Mornin Ateista,

I want to clarify something. way back we had this exchange about why your materialism is not also deterministic:

me: 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?

for which you gave me kudos: I think you summed it up beautifully!

First, does quantum physics merely point out the limits of science to know and predict phenomena? IOW, there is this “quantum curtain” which prevents us from seeing all the causal forces at play. But we still believe that, if we knew all the knowable conditions that bear on a situation as well as the unknowable ones behind the quantum curtain, the outcome would be fully knowable. (which is still an espousal of philosiphical determinism)

Or

Does quantum physics say, even given complete knowledge of the conditions that bear on a situation, including those behind the quantum curtain, one cannot in principle fully know the outcome?
(which is what process philosophy says)

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Seems to me that if you embrace the first position, you still are a philosophical determinist, if not a scientific one. In effect you say that each event necessarily happened the way it did because of its causes. It had no freedom at all to happen in any other way. Given the antecedent conditions, nothing else could have happened.

But if you embrace the latter, you are a process guy. The latter position maintains that every actor (atom, billiard ball, hooman bean) has some freedom to act and is not fully determined. Freedom to create is a universal factor in every event.

I don’t see any middle ground here.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Happy Easter to you Ateista,

These revelations have come to me this (early) Easter morn.

If one rejects determinism, one must also reject materialism.

Here is why. If any event in the making, that is, any “coming to be” in process lingo, has some freedom to create, then determinism can’t be true. We will never be able to know the future completely even given complete knowledge of all the causes at play. And if any outcome, once concretized, is in part the product of a creative act, it will never be totally explainable in terms of all its causes. So much for materialism, as we’ve defined it anyway.

 

[ateista]

Happy Easter to you Ateista,

And a Happy Easter to you, too.

These revelations have come to me this (early) Easter morn.

If one rejects determinism, one must also reject materialism.

Here is why. If any event in the making, that is, any “coming to be” in process lingo, has some freedom to create, then determinism can’t be true. We will never be able to know the future completely even given complete knowledge of all the causes at play. And if any outcome, once concretized, is in part the product of a creative act, it will never be totally explainable in terms of all its causes. So much for materialism, as we’ve defined it anyway.

But that is not how we define it. A materialist simply says that the world is much too complicated to be “fully” knowable. The whole process of “digging down” and finding the “ultimate” building blocks of the Universe keeps finding more and more layers, and there is no end in sight.

When looking ahead - to the future - we cannot know all the “stuff” which may play a part in the unfolding of it. (Quantum physics says so - at least for the time being). If it could be done, then there would be true determinism, we would only be railroad cars of a track. Are we? We don’t know and can never know. To prove this, we would have to take a “snapshot” of the universe, store it “outside”, rewind the Universe, lets it happen again, and compare if the two are identical. This is - of course - impossible.

So we are left with uncertainty, but we assume that we are not railroad cars on a track, personal decistions do count, and we are responsible for our actions. It is a basic, unprovable axiomatic assumption.

When looking back to the past, we are left with similar problems. An effect may have had several causes, and it is impossible to find out “which” causes played “what” part in the unfolding of the event - precisely because it is already “gone” and direct observation is impossible.

Last, but not least, the process philosophy argues that the “unknown” is somehow “creative” in nature, that is it presupposes an intelligence. And the proof of that is what is missing from your assertion.

 

[brycelaliberte]

I was born in a family which was religious. One side was Catholic (and quite devout) the other side Protestant (not very devout). I was introduced to both views. It took a long time (decades) that I started to question the whole concept of God. When I looked around in the world, I caould not reconcile a benevolent deity with the state of affairs as I perceived them. But this just in a nutshell. If you are interested in detail, we can do it in a another thread.

Perhaps you focus is incorrect. For, after all, we are eternal souls, and so the ‘pain’ of this world need not be worried about after all, since God has provided for our eternal souls. Just a nutshell answer, but if you would like to create the thread, then go ahead.

This is a grammaticaly well-formed but still invalid question. Just because there are causal chains - which no one denies - it does not follow that there “must be” a first one. This has been discussed in depth and at length in other threads.

Alright, I shall accept your denial of logic (I thought that we were entirely dependent on logic?), and move on.

Although if you could show how there need not be the ‘initial causer’ or unmoved mover, then I would gladly like to see how show there ‘need not be’ a first.

 

[ateista]

Perhaps you focus is incorrect.

How would you know that? My focus has been “honed” by 50 years of conscious existence.

For, after all, we are eternal souls, and so the ‘pain’ of this world need not be worried about after all, since God has provided for our eternal souls.

This is precisely one of those assertions which would benefit if some kind of evidence would be presented for its validity.

Although if you could show how there need not be the ‘initial causer’ or unmoved mover, then I would gladly like to see how show there ‘need not be’ a first.

Simply, because there is no necessary numerical order. Events and causes do not necesserily can be mapped on the whole integers.

 

[OTavern]

[Simply, because there is no necessary numerical order. Events and causes do not necesserily can be mapped on the whole integers.

Translation please?

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car’s motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.Peter Kreeft

To truly explain the universe requires an outside of time, necessary, independent, self-explanatory cause “with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause.” (from link above)
[/quote]

 

[ateista]

Translation please?

It really means what it says. The events cannot is placed into a numercial order. But I admit it was not an in-depth analysis, since I was just too tired. The detailed answer will be presented to the second part of your post.

To truly explain the universe requires an outside of time, necessary, independent, self-explanatory cause “with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause.” (from link above)

This line of reasoning looks very plausible, and yet fallacious. It is called the fallacy of composition. Kreeft’s argument can be summarized as follows:

Since every event in the universe must have a preceding cause, therefore the whole collection of the events (the universe) also must have a preceding cause.

That is the agrument in one sentence, just as Kreeft puts it into the train analogy…

The problem is that it presumes two things, which are either unproven or simply incorrect.

One is that you can generalize from the existence of necessary indivudual causes to the collection of events. And that needs to be proven - in every case - not merely asserted.

Example where such a generalization is true: “All tiles on the floor are white, therefore the whole floor is white.” Undoubtedly correct. You could successfully and logically generalize from the property of the tiles (white) to the property of the floor (also white).

Example when it is not correct: “All tiles on the floor are square, therefore the whole floor is also square”. Obviously it could be square, but it could be an oblong. There is no logical necessity that the collection of the tiles will “inherit” the property of each tile. The property in now “square”.

This lack of logical necessity is what is missing from Kreeft’s argument. He just assumes that the propery of “caused” can be transferred from the individual to whole. And since the transition is not obvious, he should prove that in this instance it is correct to do so (like with the colors) and not false (like with the shape).

This is called the fallacy of composition. Nevertheless, if he or anyone else could successfully argue that the generalization from the particular to the whole is correct in this case, it would be a logical argument.

But would it be reasonable? No. Because he commits another error, namely positing an “outside” cause. And that is undefined, and cannot be meaningfully defined. All the causes we know of are “inside” the universe. The universe is the collection of all physical objects, events, relationships, everything that has actual existence. All the relationships (causal or otherwise) are within this framework.

The whole universe does not need an “explanation”. It simply exists, and that is all. It is the framework within which explanations can be made. The universe is not an “event” or an “object” which needs outside “causer”. And mere logic will never help you to establish the need for one.

This second problem can be summarized as the North Pole problem. On every point of Earth there is a direction called “north” which can be meaningfully defined - except at the North Pole. One cannot meaningfully ask: “but what is to the north at the North Pole?”. It is true that such a question is syntactically correct, but it is not meaningful, since it asks for an undefined and undefinable property.

The same is true for outside causes, ourside space, outside time, etc. These phenomena are well defined “inside” the universe, but they cannot be meaningfully defined for the universe. One cannot meaningfully ask: “what is outside the universe”, or “what happened before time began” or “what caused the universe”? Syntactically well-formed yet meaningless questions, each and every one of them.

Almost all the alleged proofs for God’s existence suffer from these two problems. There are a few which are incorrect for other reasons.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

But that is not how we define it. A materialist simply says that the world is much too complicated to be “fully” knowable…When looking ahead - to the future - we cannot know all the “stuff” which may play a part in the unfolding of it…So we are left with uncertainty…When looking back to the past, we are left with similar problems. An effect may have had several causes, and it is impossible to find out “which” causes played “what” part in the unfolding of the event - precisely because it is already “gone” and direct observation is impossible…Last, but not least, the process philosophy argues that the “unknown” is somehow “creative” in nature, that is it presupposes an intelligence. And the proof of that is what is missing from your assertion.

Mornin Material Guy,

So you don’t reject determinism on philosophical grounds. You reject it because there is no way it can be proven empirically. In your mind it remains a possibility but not one for which there can be empirical proof.

And you would reject its contradictory, that there must be some freedom, for the same reason.

Getting back to the twig example, process philosophy says nothing about supposed intelligence behind the “design” of the three twigs washing upon on the shore in the shape of a triangle. For all we know, it was a totally random occurence. Process guys merely say that all the material elements and forces had some freedom to act. If we knew all the causes at play, we could not predict the exact way in which the twigs would wash up on the shore.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

And so process guys reject determinism on philosophical grounds, whereas you don’t.

 

[ateista]

So you don’t reject determinism on philosophical grounds. You reject it because there is no way it can be proven empirically. In your mind it remains a possibility but not one for which there can be empirical proof.

Well, that is one way to put it. But I think it goes deeper than that. Obviously I start with reality, and not from the speculation called philosophy.

After all philosophy is supposed to be the **abstraction **of reality, and if it does not reflect reality, then what good is it?

The deterministic vs. stochastic (or free) nature of reality cannot be decided in an empirical manner - it is impossible as the thought experiment I presented before shows. Therefore we are “free” to make either assumption. It is logical to rely on the actual nature of reality, according to our current knowledge. That simply denies determinism so it is obvious to reject it.

Getting back to the twig example, process philosophy says nothing about supposed intelligence behind the “design” of the three twigs washing upon on the shore in the shape of a triangle. For all we know, it was a totally random occurence. Process guys merely say that all the material elements and forces had some freedom to act. If we knew all the causes at play, we could not predict the exact way in which the twigs would wash up on the shore.

This is somewhat different from what you said before. You explicitly said that there must some “creative” nature in any freedom, and that word indicated an intelligence to me. Maybe I was misinterpreting your usage of “creative”.

And so process guys reject determinism on philosophical grounds, whereas you don’t.

I think mine is more reasonable, but of course I am prejudiced. If philosophy has any merit, it must reflect reality. It would be inconceivable to set up a philosophical “picture” of reality, and expect that reality would conveniently conform to our ideas. I sure hope you agree with this method.

 

[OTavern]

After all philosophy is supposed to be the **abstraction **of reality, and if it does not reflect reality, then what good is it?

The deterministic vs. stochastic (or free) nature of reality cannot be decided in an empirical manner - it is impossible as the thought experiment I presented before shows. Therefore we are “free” to make either assumption. It is logical to rely on the actual nature of reality, according to our current knowledge. That simply denies determinism so it is obvious to reject it.

It seems that consciousness, as the ability to reflect reality has no point or purpose unless it also entails an ability or capacity to “be free” of the determinism that seems to apply within a strictly causal materialism.

Why have a mere capacity to transcend, abstract or “reflect” upon the causal chain of events unless built into it is also some “power” not just to abstract reality but also to dynamically alter it free from the chain itself? This seems to imply an “outside” purpose for consciousness.

Even from a strictly evolutionary framework some kind of purpose seems to be built into consciousness.** Why would human beings need to be “witnesses” to a determined causal order unless the ability also carries with it the power to impact and, therefore, change events “free from” the causal chain itself?** Also, why would a causal chain “need” to alter itself unless some kind of teleological or evolving purpose also existed?

The other question is, How could a strictly material causal order even create the circumstances for this “abstraction” process without some “transcendent” (name removed by moderator)ut or demand. This would not be merely a triangle of sticks washing up on the beach, but a triangle deliberately forming itself making intentional use of the physical factors of the water, sand and wind. Obviously, this is not possible for the sticks, but seems to be for human beings.

It is not clear to me that we are “free” to make either assumption of deterministic or stochastic nature of reality, but are compelled by the fact of consciousness to accept the latter.

 

[brycelaliberte]

How would you know that? My focus has been “honed” by 50 years of conscious existence.

Perhaps it has, but if one’s focus was always in the wrong place, how much more it would be placed there! There are others your age or more, with entirely different conclusions. Moot point.

This is precisely one of those assertions which would benefit if some kind of evidence would be presented for its validity.

Exactly. Present some evidence there is no soul, and we can agree. Until then, I shall see that we are eternal souls, and so how easily I can accept whatever this life has to hold for me.

Simply, because there is no necessary numerical order. Events and causes do not necesserily can be mapped on the whole integers.

1. No necessary numerical order. 2. Therefore, no need for initial cause. 3. Wait?
2. No need for initial cause. 2. Therefore, no necessary numerical order. 3. But, wait?

Your argument is self-defeating, for we can put it into a necessary numerical order of events. Reductio ad absurdum. If we cannot, then it is simply incoherent, which would also be shown be necessary numerical order of events.

So, let’s use the epicheirem.

“There need not be any necessary order of events.”

But, that would be a necessary order of event to clause that there is no necessary order of events.

Therefore, “There are necessary order of events.”

Logic is self-validating.

So, again, what is your basis to deny the first proof?

 

[ateista]

Perhaps it has, but if one’s focus was always in the wrong place, how much more it would be placed there! There are others your age or more, with entirely different conclusions. Moot point.

That is their problem, not mine. It is their prerogative to belive in whatever they want to. Little green men, dragons, tooth fairies, honest lawyers, non-crooked politicians - no skin off my nose.

Exactly. Present some evidence there is no soul, and we can agree.

Oh, that is easy. As we all know (though some may deny it out of sheer stubbornness and sinful pride) the eternal and immortal souls have always been created and maintained by yellow leprechauns with red polka dots - they have been subcontrated by God so he can have more time to reorganize the flamethrowers in hell. They have been a dying breed, and last night I have accidently fed the last one to my pet dragon. So all the eternal souls went out with his demise… though rumor says that God now will outsource the souls to India - so maybe not all is lost. See how easy it is to prove a universal negative? Next time ask me something really difficult…

As for the rest, I gave a detailed analysis on the previous page. Please read there.

 

[j1s2a3]

OK how did material materialize?

 

[j1s2a3]

OK how did material materialize?

Oh I get it you debate several issues at once.Babble is cheap ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!DON’T use the Bible you prove only ignorance.

 

[j1s2a3]

Oh I get it you debate several issues at once.Babble is cheap ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!DON’T use the Bible you prove only ignorance.

ok this is the deep thread ok I’m very stupid and very ignorant.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

The deterministic vs. stochastic (or free) nature of reality cannot be decided in an empirical manner - it is impossible as the thought experiment I presented before shows. Therefore we are “free” to make either assumption. It is logical to rely on the actual nature of reality, according to our current knowledge. That simply denies determinism so it is obvious to reject it.

We can also reject determinism on philosophical grounds.

This is somewhat different from what you said before. You explicitly said that there must some “creative” nature in any freedom, and that word indicated an intelligence to me. Maybe I was misinterpreting your usage of “creative”.

I think “creative” has been used in these senses. First, in opposition to determinists, process guys assert that comings to be have to have some freedom to deviate from their constituent causes. That’s why any outcome or event will never be completely predictable, even given perfect knowledge of the causes, were that possible.

Secondly, in opposition to classical materialists, the completed event is a whole being which is always more than the sum of its parts or causes. There is more being there than which you started.

I think mine is more reasonable, but of course I am prejudiced. If philosophy has any merit, it must reflect reality. It would be inconceivable to set up a philosophical “picture” of reality, and expect that reality would conveniently conform to our ideas. I sure hope you agree with this method.

I believe that philosophy is more than a mind game. It is possible to formulate necessary truths about reality.

Bertand Russell, who for a very brief time believed the ontological argument to be sound, put the questions this way:

The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thought? Every philosopher would like to say yes, because a philosopher’s job is to find out things about the world by thinking rather than observing. If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things. If not, not.

Russell eventually thought not. His colleague, A.N. Whitehead, thought yes.