Metaphysics & The End Of Science

[Charlemagne_II]

TOUCHSTONE

Get your inspiration anywhere you like, just know that it has to perform as science, if you want it to be advanced as science.

No, you have to get your inspiration from a true source. Einstein did not get his inspiration from a true source when he originally posited the eternity of the universe. The only source he could be said to have used was his own preference that the universe be eternal so that he would not have to reckon with Genesis. In fact, he denied the true source (Genesis) as theological rather than scientific. But LeMaitre, whose training was both theological and mathematical, was able to see that the cosmological constant was a deliberate attempt to suppress the truth … namely, that the universe had a start in time. In this instance, naturalistic science was impeded by a refusal to consider an alternative** just because** it was a theological alternative, and so the progress of science was temporarily impeded because of that rank bias. Indeed, science confirmed Genesis through Hubble’s telescope and then again by the background radiation noise.

Now it is happening again. Scientists of the naturalistic school are trying to suppress the notion of intelligent design when it is being proposed as an alternative to purposeless evolution. You are stuck in the old mode of thinking, and it’s a safe bet that sooner or later the scientific community will cave in to intelligent design, as it caved in to the Big Bang as more and more evidence piled up.

Touchstone, have you read William Dembski’s Intelligent Design or Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. If so, do you have them at hand. If not, do you have other books on intelligent design at hand … I mean books designed to advance ID rather than refute it?

 

[TheAtheist]

No, you have to get your inspiration from a true source.

That in and of itself is a loaded assumption.

Kekule for instance, thought of the benzene ring structure for aromatic compounds based on a dream he had of a snake eating its tail. Thats an Ouroboros i believe, an ancient alchemical symbol.

I doubt anyone here is going to say that the alchemical writings as found in the Ripley scroll or as written by Jabir Ibn hayyan constitute a “True source” of chemical knowledge - but the idea served as an inspiration no less.

Scientists of the naturalistic school are trying to suppress the notion of intelligent design when it is being proposed as an alternative to purposeless evolution.

Ah, but i think the general criticism for those scientists who don’t wake up in the morning shaking their fists at the faithful (as i imagine some people believe Dawkins does - consider this simply an over exaggeration) - ie: Those who aren’t emotionally invested in the outcome - is that the methodology invoked by ID folk is a bit skewed.

You are stuck in the old mode of thinking, and it’s a safe bet that sooner or later the scientific community will cave in to intelligent design, as it caved in to the Big Bang as more and more evidence piled up.

Of course we’re stuck in an old mode of thinking - scientific revolutions do not happen daily.

Furthermore, i know plenty of scientists who agree with the statements of Karl Popper - that they can’t ever really prove something to be 100% true. Only that something is in fact false. There is no way to tell if the current structure of our sciences is merely a subset of a larger set of rules.

In this instance, naturalistic science was impeded by a refusal to consider an alternative just because it was a theological alternative, and so the progress of science was temporarily impeded because of that rank bias. Indeed, science confirmed Genesis through Hubble’s telescope and then again by the background radiation noise.

You know, the Buddhists are saying the same thing about both those who ascribe to your theology or my materialism as being categorically biased about the manner in which we think about reality.

From their perspective, the advances in Neuroscience and the study of Consciousness is well on the road to proving Buddha’s doctrines of the mind correct (and in certain cases, there is indeed some functional overlap) and one day “we’ll all cave into the truth of the Law of Dharma and Reincarnation”

[EDIT - Since you were kind of enough to point to Dembski and Behe’s work, allow me to return the favor for you and those interested - that is of course if your not willing to outright dismiss what they are stating without reading it:

Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge (Columbia Series in Science and Religion) (Paperback) by B. Allan Wallace

The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama

The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness by B. Allan Wallace]

But back to the main point:

The manner of your objection seems to be “Your not considering the idea or possibility of such because your utilizing a specific framework of thought.”

So what’s the alternative that your proposing? It sounds like Paul Feyerabend’s Epistemological Anarchism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

Here’s a snippet - and for those interested i suggest you pick up his book “Against Method”

In his books Against Method and Science in a Free Society Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress. In his view, science would benefit most from a “dose” of theoretical anarchism. He also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable because it was more humanitarian than other systems of organization, by not imposing rigid rules on scientists.

For is it not possible that science as we know it today, or a "search for the truth" in the style of traditional philosophy, will create a monster? Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour? "Is it not possible," asks Kierkegaard, "that my activity as an objective [or critico-rational] observer of nature will weaken my strength as a human being?" I suspect the answer to many of these questions is affirmative and I believe that a reform of the sciences that makes them more anarchic and more subjective (in Kierkegaard's sense) is urgently needed. (AM, p.154)

Feyerabend’s position was originally seen as radical in the philosophy of science, because it implies that philosophy can neither succeed in providing a general description of science, nor in devising a method for differentiating products of science from non-scientific entities like myths. (Feyerabend’s position also implies that philosophical guidelines should be ignored by scientists, if they are to aim for progress.)

To support his position that methodological rules generally do not contribute to scientific success, Feyerabend provides counterexamples to the claim that (good) science operates according to a certain fixed method. He took some examples of episodes in science that are generally regarded as indisputable instances of progress (e.g. the Copernican revolution), and showed that all common prescriptive rules of science are violated in such circumstances. Moreover, he claimed that applying such rules in these historical situations would actually have prevented scientific revolution.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The Atheist

This is the third time that I have suggested in various threads that I would be willing to discuss intelligent design, but not with anyone who hasn’t read an authoritative book advancing the idea, such as Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, or William Dembski’s Intelligent Design, as opposed to a book that is written to debunk ID. Trying to debunk Dembski or Behe without reading their books is like trying to debunk Darwin without having read his.

Until such an atheist comes forward, I’m going to assume there is no atheist at Catholic Answers who knows what he is talking about when he debunks ID based on the uninformed and backward looking arguments of Richard Dawkins, whose naturalism and scientism is clearly bogged down in the nineteenth century euphoria over atheistic evolution.

So what I am asking atheists to do is explain precisely what intelligent design is, and why it is wrong. Atheists musn’t be content to cite the arguments of ID’s critics. They must go to the root source and be able and willing to cite page and paragraph from Behe and/or Dembski. Until we have proof that any atheist at Catholic Answers knows what he is talking about, as opposed to aping Dawkins, why should ID advocates talk to him?

A second question implied by the first is whether, if there is any biological or mathematical foundation for ID, should that foundation be suggested in biology textbooks as a factor in the first appearance of life and in the subsequent stages of evolution? This question probably should not be discussed until after extensive discussion of the pros and cons of ID. Let’s all agree to that, please.

Thank you.

So please get your copy of one or both of the above mentioned texts and join me at
a new thread I am about to start. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5042221#post5042221

It will be interesting to see if any atheist at Catholic Answers has read Behe or Dembski … or if they all have agreed among themselves not to read them.

 

[Touchstone]

The Atheist

This is the third time that I have suggested in various threads that I would be willing to discuss intelligent design, but not with anyone who hasn’t read an authoritative book advancing the idea, such as Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, or William Dembski’s Intelligent Design, as opposed to a book that is written to debunk ID. Trying to debunk Dembski or Behe without reading their books is like trying to debunk Darwin without having read his.

Until such an atheist comes forward, I’m going to assume there is no atheist at Catholic Answers who knows what he is talking about when he debunks ID based on the uninformed and backward looking arguments of Richard Dawkins, whose naturalism and scientism is clearly bogged down in the nineteenth century euphoria over atheistic evolution.

So what I am asking atheists to do is explain precisely what intelligent design is, and why it is wrong. Atheists musn’t be content to cite the arguments of ID’s critics. They must go to the root source and be able and willing to cite page and paragraph from Behe and/or Dembski. Until we have proof that any atheist at Catholic Answers knows what he is talking about, as opposed to aping Dawkins, why should ID advocates talk to him?

Oh please. I’ve got those books, and a whole shelf more. You’re welcome to go through chapter and verse if you like, and I can refer to them here. I think you do not give us nearly enough credit, and moreover, are quite naïve if you think either of the books you cite are solid representation of the movement itself, or the full ideology being advanced by its leaders. For example, I keep up with, and have been for years now, the running dialogs (such as the censors will permit, anyway) at TelicThoughts, UncommonDescent, ISCID, ARN, Behe’s blog on Amazon and the like.

You’re flattering yourself if you think this is about ignorance of what ID advances.

See, for example, todays post at uncommondescent.com put up by “idnet.com.au” on behalf of Dr Caroline Crocker (link). Not surprisingly, the complaint launched here is the same as yours: critics just don’t understand! Here’s a section from her complaint:

But, is this what ID really says? Not at all! ID theory suggests that it is possible to objectively detect the action of intelligent agency in the world, by the presence of two features: complexity and specificity. Our experience of the world shows that if something that is highly complex, ALSO conforms to a pre-existing pattern or contains information, then it has been designed by an intelligent being. When ID theorists see these features in naturally-occurring objects, we posit that an intelligent being may have had a part in their design. Science of course need not speculate about the identity of this being.

This is both a foundational position of ID – that the works of intelligent agency are objectively detectable in the world through complexity combined with specificity – and an spectacularly erroneous starting point. Why, because agency is itself an assessment we make as a result of apprising the actors involved. We suppose that an “arrowhead shaped object” that is found at an archaeological site along with human skeletons is an arrowhead, because it plausibly matches up with the faculties and capabilites of actors in that context. Here at that site we have evidence of hominids, which is all we need in terms of capabilities to make the “arrowhead hypothesis” a good one.

But an “arrowhead shaped object” from the pre-Cambrian strata, found “alone” and not in conjunction with evidence of any agents plausibly connected to its manufacture as a tool, not just in that location, but in all locations for millions and millions of years before and after? Then, the “just looks designed, a coincidence” hypothesis takes over.

Why is that? Because of something that ID willfully chooses to ignore/misunderstand, as illustrated by the quote above; there is no intrinsic “designedness” to detect, but only a best-fit matching betweent the capabilities of designers and artifacts which can be explained by those capabilities, then. Or, to put it another way, without having knowledge of the designer, you’ve got no basis for inferring design. None at all.

That makes ID fundamentally vacuous. The notions that specified complexity are coherent, formal concepts about reality are no more valuable epistemologically than saying “well an omniscient God can do anything”. Yeah, everything is designed, if you want to go that way.

You can correct me, but I understand the fundamental claim of ID to be that the results of intelligent design activity are objectively discoverable in nature, even if we have no knowledge of the designer, or the designer’s attributes or capabilities. “Designedness” as an intrinsic property of (some parts of) nature. It’s the religious intution seeking scientific credibility, and failing badly – no better (or worse) than saying “everything must have a cause”; the intuition running roughshod over analysis.

So please get your copy of one or both of the above mentioned texts and join me at
a new thread I am about to start.

I, for one, am a grizzled veteran of the ID wars. And frankly, if you think Dembski and Behe are something new and shiny and amazing, you are way, way beind the curve. Maybe take a look at Mike Gene’s work, eh? At least he’s thoughtful and fairly disciplined in thinking about this stuff.

It will be interesting to see if any atheist at Catholic Answers has read Behe or Dembski … or if they all have agreed among themselves not to read them.

Been there, done that. Over and over. Have all the books. Have been across the tired, capricious arguments ad nauseum. But if it’s new for you, have at it, and let’s see how well you can defend their vapid ideas.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

O.K. I can see you are going ballistic (another Dawkins moment) so I don’t count on you for an intelligent conversation. Maybe someone else will show up. If you decide to join us, you have to be able to cite book chapter and verse and not just your own tiresome tirades.

Charlie

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

O.K. I can see you are going ballistic (another Dawkins moment) so I don’t count on you for an intelligent conversation. Maybe someone else will show up. If you decide to join us, you have to be able to cite book chapter and verse and not just your own tiresome tirades.

Charlie

If you read that post, I provided “chapter and verse”, from a post made TODAY at Dembski’s blog, by one of the poster children for ID, Dr. Caroline Crocker, featured in the megahit ID movie *Expelled. *There’s the thesis, right there, “chapter and verse”. Do you disagree? How much more “chapter and verse” does it get than that? Or is there something “sacred” about just these two books (which promote the same idea)?

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

There’s nothing sacred about these two books. There’s nothing sacred for sure (I hope you will agree) in anything written by Darwin or Dawkins either.

Again, I started the other thread, and I expect sooner or later you’ll show. But if you do, you need to be ready to attack specific chapters from these books, which mount the early arguments raised for ID., arguments that it seems to me still have not been answered except by outright denial and without proof. If you have proof to offer, you are welcome to use it, even if it’s proof someone else offered (though I have noticed in the past that you object to using “authorities” as a proof of anything).

If, as you say, you’ve read these books (I take you at your word) I cannot believe you did not read them without pen in hand scribbling marginal comments of disapproval. Why not start with those comments and identify the pages on which you made those comments? I and others who own copies of those books can follow you easily. This way we avoid the travail of dealing with the book reviews or the bulldog critics.

But first of all I’d like to see you briefly summarize what you think are one or two central arguments for ID (biological and/or mathematical). Why not do this at the new thread? Only by seeing you do this can I know that you have a truthful grasp of the subject. If you’re not willing to do that, I don’t think you should bother yourself any more with ID as you seem to be very tired of it already.

I will not be returning to this thread for a discussion of this topic as I think a more interesting avenue will be followed at the other one.

 

[MindOverMatter]

you’ve got no basis for inferring design. None at all.

We have no scientific basis. But we certainly have a metaphysical basis for inferring purpose and meaning.

no better (or worse) than saying “everything must have a cause”; the intuition running roughshod over analysis.

Nobody i know of makes this arguement. Rather, they would say that everything that begins to exist or change, has a cause. This is a perfectly reasonable statement.

 

[Touchstone]

We have no scientific basis. But we certainly have a metaphysical basis for inferring purpose and meaning.

OK, fair enough. I don’t know how to qualify what is a “metaphysical basis” for such an inference, but so long as we’re clear on the extra-scientific nature of it, I’m fine.

Nobody i know of makes this arguement. Rather, they would say that everything that begins to exist or change, has a cause. This is a perfectly reasonable statement.

Well, quantum fluctuations. As far as we can tell, they look acausal. An intrinsic bit of randomness at the fundamental layer. If you say “well, it must have a cause”, then you have left the empirical basis you left above (“everything that begins…”) and are simply standing on dogma, or intuiton.

Causality is not, repeat NOT, a given if we are considering the natural world. The more we know, the more acausality appears a basic aspect of some parts of our reality. It’s this acausality that has shattered the Lamarckian determinism idea. And gives all sorts of fits to religious intuitions as well.

-TS

 

[geometer]

TOUCHSTONE

Get your inspiration anywhere you like, just know that it has to perform as science, if you want it to be advanced as science.

No, you have to get your inspiration from a true source. Einstein did not get his inspiration from a true source when he originally posited the eternity of the universe. The only source he could be said to have used was his own preference that the universe be eternal so that he would not have to reckon with Genesis.

Well, Einstein was big on intuition. He said that intuition is the gift and logic the servant.
most people worship the servant and ignore the gift.

What are the axioms of logic other than intuitions? Everything flows from intuition…

 

[MindOverMatter]

If you say “well, it must have a cause”, then you have left the empirical basis you left above.

Causality is not known just on an empirical basis. Its logic. Science certainly undermines Naturalism if it is not a disproof; but it does nothing to undermine the logic that anything which changes needs a cause. If something has no potentiality to change, then it ought not to change. If there is nothing before the first event, then there is no possibility for events. Thats logical thinking; not intuition. If something has the potentiality to change then something is causing that potentiality for change. Thats logical thinking; not intuition. I respect logic. You have given up on logic because you do not want to address the reality that God exists.

Causality is not, repeat NOT, a given if we are considering the natural world.

I consider the natural world within the bounds of logic. I interpret the world according to logic. If you are going to give up on logic when you so choose, then what intellectual bases do you have for challenging design theorists? You are saying that somethings have no logical reason to change, they just do. If thats what you call a rebuttal of cause and effect, then i have no choice but to think that you have given up on thinking so that you can believe in some world-view that suits you.

The more we know, the more acausality appears a basic aspect of some parts of our reality.

“Appearances”. Didn’t you just say that about intelligent design. It seems to me that you have an unsupportable bias. You’re ducking and diving. You use logic when it suits you, and when it doesn’t suit you, you claim that logic is not applicable. There is nothing intellectual, or respectful of knowledge, about that attitude.

It’s this a-causality that has shattered the Lamarckian determinism idea.

Nothing has been shattered; only your ability to think logically.

 

[Touchstone]

Well, Einstein was big on intuition. He said that intuition is the gift and logic the servant.
most people worship the servant and ignore the gift.

What are the axioms of logic other than intuitions? Everything flows from intuition…

Axioms obtain from necessity, else they are not axioms. To say that “a=a” (Law of Identity) is not a statement merely of intuition. It’s a necessity for conveying semantics at all. To say that a proposition cannot be false and true, simultaneously (Law of Non-contradiction) is nothing more than a commitment to its necessity if we are going to use the concepts of “true” and “false” as mutually exclusive.

Even then, those axioms are necessary for some given purpose. Reality isn’t beholden to our notions (intuitive or otherwise) of logic. Indeed, much of what we deploy as logic is derived from our physical experience, but we experience just a very small part of the reality spectrum. For example, a qubit in quantum physics represents a quantum bit of information at quantum scales. It’s not “on” or “off” like a “bit” would be in the digital sense (computer information storage, for example). A qubit, rather than being exclusively “1” or “0”, can be a *superposition *of both.

Whoops! What about the Law of non-Contradiction? Well, the universe doesn’t work in “binary” quanta in terms of information, but rather upon a principle that supports the notions of “true” (1), “false” (0), as well as a superposition of both => |0} and |1}, notationally.

I think it’s worth pointing that out as an example of where man’s intuitions get completely embarrassed for the fluff they are, outside of man’s anthropic zone. In any case, axioms get the “axiomness” from their necessity, not their “intuivity”.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Causality is not known just on an empirical basis. Its logic.
Ok, what’s the syllogism you’re thinking of here? What is the logical necessity you are drawing on for the conclusion: all change must have a cause.

Science certainly undermines Naturalism

OK, well, if your argument here is that I’m simply not willing to mean what I say or say what I mean, it’s a different, short conversation. Better to address the merits, maybe, then play psychoanalyst?

I consider the natural world within the bounds of logic. I interpret the world according to logic. If you are going to give up on logic when you so choose, then what intellectual bases do you have for challenging design theorists?
Logic is a tool. It’s not magic. I understand the universe around me (and us) to be at leastly partly rational, partly intelligible, based on unformities, symmetries and congruencies that emerge from interacting with it. But that should not be confused with the idea that reality is whatever my intuitive fancies indicate. Many of my intuitions are right on, but many truths about about the world are outrageously counter-intuitive. And in terms of logic, while some aspects of reality are overwhelmingly supportive of logical interpretation, some parts simply defy what we would call conventionally logical. A qubit, as I said to geometer, is not necessarily either ‘1’ or ‘0’, or even any particular point in between, but may be a *superposition *of both values, a kind of dialethic logic, much different than the kind of logic we are in the habit of applying in our every day life. Fortunately, thinking in “qubits” is not a requirement for working out an efficient shopping list for the week, but the wider reality is more complex than that.

You are saying that somethings have no logical reason to change, they just do

.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that’s a possibility. There may be some causality behind it, but there may not be, as a matter of logical possibilities. You, on the other hand, appear to be making categorical assertions on the matter. My position is one of agnosticism as a starting position, as demanded by the logical possibilities. From there we proceed (possibly) to conclusions, based on the evidence, and analysis of that evidence.

If thats what you call a rebuttal of cause and effect, then i have no choice but to think that you have given up on thinking so that you can believe in some world-view that suits you.

There’s nothing more to it than to observe that your “necessities” are not logical necessities. There may be causal factors for everything we’re talking about. But it’s not a necessity in terms of logic that that must be the case. Logically, we are open to logical possibilities, and proceed from their to (possibly) narrow down the possibilities based on what we learn through observation, testing, analysis.

“Appearances”. Didn’t you just say that about intelligent design. It seems to me that you have an unsupportable bias. You’re ducking and diving. You use logic when it suits you, and when it doesn’t suit you, you claim that logic is not applicable. There is nothing intellectual, or respectful of knowledge, about that attitude.

I’m saying logic always applies, although we may have to adopt some different axioms in some contexts (you can’t think of a qubit in terms of the Law of Non-Contradiction, for example, it’s just something other than a binary value, or even a scalar value between two limits). Logically, your assertion that every change must **necessarily **have a cause fails, and fails badly. Have you read your Hume? “conjoined but never connected”?

Kant pointed out long ago that causality is an *a priori *condition for our thoughts. It’s necessary for us to assign causality to conceptualize subjects and interactions we wish to think about. But the universe isn’t under some Cosmic Obligation to bow before the demands of our conceptual limitations, is it? We find plenty that is intelligible and orderly through our use of the causality inference, but it’s a huge logical mistake to think that what we find amenable to causal explanations around us demands some kind of Cosmic Law of Causality, even on a metaphysical (e.g. “pre”-BigBang) level.

Nothing has been shattered; only your ability to think logically.

sigh

-TS

 

[MindOverMatter]

You remind me of Rashbam!!!

carm.org/apologetics/apologetics-dialogues/atheist-who-denies-logic-absolute

 

[geometer]

Axioms obtain from necessity, else they are not axioms. To say that “a=a” (Law of Identity) is not a statement merely of intuition. It’s a necessity for conveying semantics at all. To say that a proposition cannot be false and true, simultaneously (Law of Non-contradiction) is nothing more than a commitment to its necessity if we are going to use the concepts of “true” and “false” as mutually exclusive.

Even then, those axioms are necessary for some given purpose. Reality isn’t beholden to our notions (intuitive or otherwise) of logic. Indeed, much of what we deploy as logic is derived from our physical experience, but we experience just a very small part of the reality spectrum. For example, a qubit in quantum physics represents a quantum bit of information at quantum scales. It’s not “on” or “off” like a “bit” would be in the digital sense (computer information storage, for example). A qubit, rather than being exclusively “1” or “0”, can be a *superposition *of both.

Whoops! What about the Law of non-Contradiction? Well, the universe doesn’t work in “binary” quanta in terms of information, but rather upon a principle that supports the notions of “true” (1), “false” (0), as well as a superposition of both => |0} and |1}, notationally.

I think it’s worth pointing that out as an example of where man’s intuitions get completely embarrassed for the fluff they are, outside of man’s anthropic zone. In any case, axioms get the “axiomness” from their necessity, not their “intuivity”.

-TS

Intuition is simply the human ability to think. It is the highest thinking ability, machines can’t do that. It took a human mind to discover the axioms. To say that they are necessary to some systems of logic, is simply to say that they are useful. And, it takes human cognition to know that.

Deduction is the lowest form of intellegence. A two dollar calculator can deduct.

Why glorify the revelation of the axioms any more than any other revealed knowledge?

Each kind of mathematics is founded on some axioms, and there is no universal set of axioms which can be the foundation of all logics.

Logics are simply linguistic tools for our model descriptions. Most systems of logic are pure mind games, which have no real applications. I would venture that they all are pure mind games… We don’t have a system of logic that performs as the function of a crystal ball. Proof in hard science depends on human experience.

 

[Touchstone]

Intuition is simply the human ability to think.

No. Doing mathematical proofs, for example, is not a matter of intuition. It takes thinking, but it’s not intuition that makes the proof come out right. Intuition is typically understood to be “sense without reasoning”, or possibly “sense prior to reasoning”. That is a cognitive process, but not nearly the sum of it.

It is the highest thinking ability, machines can’t do that.

What do you mean by “highest”? A machine certainly can do that, and it’s even more rudimentary than simple deduction, if we use the conventional definition of intuition as “pre-rational, sense without reasoning”.

It took a human mind to discover the axioms. To say that they are necessary to some systems of logic, is simply to say that they are useful. And, it takes human cognition to know that.

Well, utility isn’t something we have a corner on. A chimp will use the concept of persistence of objects to good effect just like a human will, logically inferring that a banana put inside a cardboard box is still extant, even though it’s not visible because of the box. A nod to the Law of Identity, there, in both cases, and useful in practical terms in both cases, as well.

Deduction is the lowest form of intellegence. A two dollar calculator can deduct.

Hmmm. Maybe it’s higher than intuition, as it requires active reasoning, however elementary that reasoning may be?

Why glorify the revelation of the axioms any more than any other revealed knowledge?

Not sure what you mean by ‘glorify’. I don’t ‘glorify’ any axioms beyond simply affirming their utility and necessity in rationalizing an analytical environment. If anything, I’m an “axiom-hunter”, as most assertions that are used as axioms are not properly axiomatic at all, and are simply unnecessary and a euphemism for caprice.

Each kind of mathematics is founded on some axioms, and there is no universal set of axioms which can be the foundation of all logics.

That’s right. Axioms are just tools of logic, necessities we take on because we cannot proceed without them toward a given goal.

Logics are simply linguistic tools for our model descriptions. Most systems of logic are pure mind games, which have no real applications. I would venture that they all are pure mind games… We don’t have a system of logic that performs as the function of a crystal ball. Proof in hard science depends on human experience.

But human experience is the ultimate “un-mind-game”. It is contact with the extramental world (at least for those of us who aren’t strong solipsists). That’s cool, because that’s one area where logic obtains practical utility and validation. To make a model work against the real world, it must approximate the “logic” of that world to some level of approximation. To the extent that our model is accurate/performative, then, we have reason to believe we are are party to a logic that obtains from reality itself, and not just the mind.

-TS

 

[geometer]

But human experience is the ultimate “un-mind-game”. It is contact with the extramental world (at least for those of us who aren’t strong solipsists). That’s cool, because that’s one area where logic obtains practical utility and validation. To make a model work against the real world, it must approximate the “logic” of that world to some level of approximation. To the extent that our model is accurate/performative, then, we have reason to believe we are are party to a logic that obtains from reality itself, and not just the mind.

-TS

The logic is not out there somewhere. The word logic is dervived from logoi (words). We have no evidence for language outside of the mind. We sense the world and we also sense our minds. If a new word or axiom is needed one needs to perceptive to ideas, and ideas are inner experiences.

If human minds could not understand the ideas which are axioms, we would never discover them. We would not have the axioms that we have, each is something that the mind can do. Axioms come from the mind.