Need help with Aquinas' proofs

[Sherlock]

Thanks, folks, this has been most helpful. Not that these Objectivists are going to be convinced by anything, but if nothing else I have learned much from you. As I mentioned, I’m not a physicist, and so when someone says, “The identity of matter is that it can never be created nor destroyed. Therefore, I argue that the existence of matter is eternal- and you argue that it was somehow created (contrary to its identity) by a supernatural being”, I need all of the help I can get.

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

Yes you need to believe this to continue with your argument, but you have no “observation” to prove it.
There no observation of this “outside” (and by definition, no observation can be made; if it would, the outside became the inside). Why assume something without observation?

Even if what you say is true, then you have to explain how nothingness (no “outside”) becomes something, no? And when you do this, you have to do it for all of the universe because our best “observations” are that this is what happened: from nothingness space and time expanded into all we can observe.

1. Space and time are not nothing. Do we agree on that?
2. The space-time does not expand into “something”. The distances between objects within the space-time increases, that we observe, that we call “expansion”. The space-time-continuum itself is a finite but boundless enclosure without an outside, there is nothing to expand into. This assessment requires a bit of five-dimensional thinking, I suggest you master the appropiate mathmatics, then it’s rather easy to understand.

Also, I’ll take your lack of response to the rest of my post as encouragement! You continue to view the entire universe without regard to the life it contains. Is that because science can only observe the “accidentals” of life and not it’s “substance” or essence?

Life has no essence nor substance. Your monitor does need a "Catholic-Answer-Forum"ness to produce the picture you see right now. The picture is made up of colored spots, yet it is more than the pixels, because it contains information (the pixels are organised). Life incl. the mind consists of ordinary matter, but the way this matter is organised makes up the specialty. Now you may argue, this organisation had to be planned (the intelligent designer argument, far better than the cosmological one, if you ask me, but the latter is the issue right now), but chances are these structures are self-organising. Self-organisation can be widely observed btw.

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

One little problem for me - what’s an "actual infinite’ and how do we know it can’t exist?

Physically the “actual infinite” would be a singularity. Singularities have no size, therefore quantum effects will apply for sure. How they apply, cannot be said yet, as we do not have a grand unified theory of all forces yet. But it seems from what we know now, that quantum effects will ensure that singularities do not appear in reality. Hawking’s works on the entropy and radiation of black holes are quite interesting in that regard.

Unfortunate for the cosmological argument, quantum effects happen without a cause.

 

[BibleReader]

Philthy:

Could you please separate what your premises are and what your conclusions are from the above?

For your first contention that God does not fit in the premise of Aquinas’ proofs and that he “pulls a rabbit out of a hat” I disagree. Aquinas arrives at conclusions and defines God as the entity that those conclusions represent. How is that pulling a rabbit out of a hat?

As for your later statements, Is it like this:

Reason cannot reveal the existence of God
Reason has revealed many things
Therefore, none of these things are God

Sorry, but premise number one is an opinion until you prove otherwise, and if so your conclusion is to be regarded as an opinion as well. It contradicts the notion of God revealing himself. Why can’t God reveal himself to our reason?

Phil

Hi, Phil.

There are only two kinds of “proofs.” Deductive proofs, which ostensibly generate “certainty,” and inductive proofs, which don’t pretend to generate certainty.

Do you know of any others? Honest: Do you know of any others?

Aquinas’ “proofs” for God’s existence are overtly invalid inductive proofs, structured to look like deductive proofs.

In an inductive proof, one looks at a domain, “A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y,” and says, “Look! Look! A has a particular characteristic, B has the same characteristic, C has the same characteristic,” and so on, until he says, “And Y has the same characteristic; THEREFORE, I induce that Z has the same characteristic!” In Aquinas’ proof, he looks at the domain, concludes that all are caused effects, and instead of inducing that THEREFORE God has the same characteristic – God is another caused effect," he jumps to, “THEREFORE, God is an UN-caused effect.” His conclusion violates the inductions premise, caused (not UN-caused) effects.

I don’t think that Aquinas was trying to be deceptive. I think that he deceived himself, because though he was a much better human then me, he was still human.

And, ultimately, induction and deduction are ONLY arguments. Applied to objective reality, THEY DO NOT SUCCEED IN PRODUCING RIGHT RESULTS ALL OF THE TIME.

For instance, 1 + 1 always, ALWAYS, **ALWAYS **= 2, in **ALL **circumstances, right?

Wrong.

In objective reality, additions of two velocities **NEVER **add up to two velocities. In objective reality, something called the Lorenz Transformation governs reality, such that the addition of Velocity 1 and Velocity 1 always adds up to **LESS THAN **Velocity 2.

Aquinas posited that on the Earth we see, effects are always caused.

This, too, **APPEARS TO BE **fundamentally wrong. Quantum behavior – the behavior of subatomic particles – SEEMS TO BE fundamentally random and uncaused.

“APPEARS TO BE"and "SEEMS TO BE” are important terms, here, because what Aquinas purports to do in his “proofs” of God’s existence is jump from OUR OBSERVATIONS OF APPARENT reality to the higher, more real **SPIRITUAL **reality.

The observations are different than Aquinas assumed that they would be.

 

[AnAtheist]

BibleReader:

For instance, 1 + 1 always, ALWAYS, **ALWAYS **= 2, in **ALL **circumstances, right?

Wrong.

In objective reality, additions of two velocities **NEVER **add up to two velocities. In objective reality, something called the Lorenz Transformation governs reality, such that the addition of Velocity 1 and Velocity 1 always adds up to **LESS THAN **Velocity 2.

I agree with the rest of your post, but the quoted piece is wrong.
1+1=2 is by definition always true. That is what the operator + on natural numbers and the digits 1 and 2 mean.

In objective reality you cannot ***add ***two velocities, because the sum of two velocuties does not exist. Which is mainly due to the fact discussed elsewhere in this thread that space and time are ***not **an infinite and absolute reference frame. The operator + cannot be used, instead you have to use the mentioned Lorentz-transformation v = (v1+v2)/(1+v1v2/c^2).

Do you see the difference?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sherlock:

AnAtheist,

You wrote: “The universe is clearly expanding and thus it had a beginning.”

Well, that’s what I thought too: indeed I recall reading a news article not too long ago that discussed new scientific findings that supported the concept of an expanding universe in general and the “big Bang” theory in particular. However, these folks are claiming otherwise, and they claim that science shows that the universe is NOT expanding, and has no beginning. This appears to be an essential, foundational belief with these folks.

Are they serious?

How, then, are they any different from “Creation Scientists” or other people who must deny science to maintain their own peculiar system of beliefs.

I should point out, there is no debating such people – they believe, and that’s it. No logic or evidence will penetrate such an attitude.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

I was talking about general relativity as well, which relies on a five-dimensional space-time geometry to be precise. And is very well proven too btw.

this isn’t quite right: general relativity itself only posits a four-dimensional manifold; the fifth dimension was posited by theodor kaluza as a means of unifying GTR with maxwell’s electrodynamics. later given sounder mathematical footing by oskar klein, that theory - in its straightforward application, anyway - was actually experimentally disconfirmed and abandoned by a generation of physicists less enamored by mathematical aesthetics than by the experimental productivity of particle physics.

kaluza-klein theory forms the basis of superstring theory.

If there is nothing in special relativity that entails a 4-dim geometry, then why do you need a 4-dimensional vector space to construct Lorentz-invariant equations?

i was not clear enough here: it’s not the the four-dimensions that aren’t required, but minkowski’s interpretation; whereas special relativity is consistent with (and was indeed initially formulated assuming) a dynamic theory of time - time as a ***parameter *- **it was hermann minkowski who suggested not only that considering time as a coordinate was a useful mathematical tool for modelling STR, but that such a formalism ought also to be understood not simply as a conceptual tool, but as being real.

so instead of three spatial dimensions evolving along one time dimension, you have a static “block” universe of fixed 4 dimensional points, the implications of which for time and ontology are radically counter-intuitive.

but, as i also say, they are unnecessary.

A Newtonian frame of reference with absolute time and space well separated is not Lorentz-invariant, and thus it does not sufficiently describe reality in a frame of reference that is moving with a high velocity. If you can prove otherwise, I am interested.

any theory involving a preferred frame of reference will not be really lorentz-invariant, but it will still be perceived as lorentz-invariant because time dilation and length-contraction still occur exactly as suggested by lorentz, and occur as real effects of uniform motion relative to absolute space.

look, einstein simply assumed that there was no aether because he was a student of the ferociously positivistic ernst mach, and then postulated the relativity principle and the constancy of the velocity of light as axioms of the theory he would consequently derive. if you want proof that the formalism of lorentz and that of einstein are logically equivalent but with different assumptions, then either read the two and compare them, or do some research. it’s not a controversial point.

you might want to start with Jánossy, Builder, Prokhovnik, Pierseaux and Brandes.

 

[4_marks]

Sherlock:

Anyway, I would greatly appreciate some help here–these are the arguments being thrown at me by a number of atheists:

“The universe is a finite entity with no cause. It has always existed and always will.”

“Why can only the infinite be eternal?”

If it is a “finite entity” it can not also have “always existed.” Their so called "logic’ in this regard is both laughable and utterly non-sensical. Surprise…surprise…surprise!

You may be wasting your breath “arguing” with them. They ardently both reject Thomistic and classical Western philosophy, and have already pre-cluded that God does not exist. Make sure to pray and fast for their conversion and give good example. People universally hunger for the authentic and naturally gravitate toward someone whose firm convictions are backed up by their daily life. They have to learn to trust you first before they will realistically listen to what you have to say. This is a major factor why the Church has had such difficulty these days reaching out.

 

[4_marks]

Benedictus:

I think most philosophers, even Catholic ones, acknowledge that Aquinas’ Five Ways are not logically valid. They are not really five separate proofs, but one comprehensive proof. Unfortunately, they all seem to fall into the same fallacy, which I once heard described as the Birthday Fallacy.

1. Everything we see has a cause.
2. Every effect has a preceeding cause.
3. Causes can’t go back infinitely.
   Therefore, there must be a single un-caused cause (i.e., God).

Even if we accept premise 3, the conclusion doesn’t follow. Why can’t there be two un-caused causes? Or 3? Or 50?

The Birthday Fallacy says that everyone has a birthday; therefore, we all have the same birthday. The Birthday Fallacy assumes that there is exactly one cause/effect chain (which, for the sake of argument, doesn’t go back forever). God is said to be the first cause. The problem is that there is no good reason for assuming that there is exactly one chain.

Personally, I believe that the existence of God can be known through the use of reason alone. I just haven’t figured out how to prove it. I think an a priori proof is more likely to be successful than an a posteriori proof like Aquinas’. I’ve been intruiged by St. Anselm’s proof, but I have yet to convince myself that it works.

Incidentally, the Church teaches de fide that God can be known by His his visible works (somewhere in Vatican I, I believe). Maybe that would imply that an a posteriori proof is possible. It also might be circular reasoning…

Good points. One problem though. If the existence of God can be known through reason alone, it can be known only to persons capable of reason. Therefore, those incapable of reason (infants and children, the elderly with brain impairment, mentally handicapped, the philosophically and mathematically uneducated) would be unable to know of the existence of God, and therefore could not have a relationship to or with God. At best, God could be identified as a cosmic force. Intelligence, itself, using purely empirical standards is a function of matter…brain activity, and is therefore, as we observe it, dependent upon matter. Using purely rational means, devoid of divine revelation, one also might reach the faulty conclusion that God’s “existence” is also be dependent upon matter, or that God is unintelligent.

To properly relate to God, Divine Revelation must come first, followed by Faith enlightened by Reason. Strict rationalism is not an appropriate approach to an understanding of the Catholic Christian faith. Rationalists conclude that the Resurrection and miracles are just stories, not facts, not to mention the conclusions they would reach regarding the Virgin Birth, Baptism and the Eucharist. Check out the verbose and pontifical musings of intelligent religious leaders such as Domenic Crossan or Shelby Spong if you are in need of some examples as to exactly where this approach leads.

 

[BibleReader]

AnAtheist:

I agree with the rest of your post, but the quoted piece is wrong.
1+1=2 is by definition always true. That is what the operator + on natural numbers and the digits 1 and 2 mean.

In objective reality you cannot ***add ***two velocities, because the sum of two velocuties does not exist. Which is mainly due to the fact discussed elsewhere in this thread that space and time are ***not **an infinite and absolute reference frame. The operator + cannot be used, instead you have to use the mentioned Lorentz-transformation v = (v1+v2)/(1+v1v2/c^2).

Do you see the difference?

In criticizing me you quoted me wrong. I DIDN’T write, “1 + 1 = 2.” Instead, I DID write…

*1 + 1 always, ALWAYS, **ALWAYS **= 2, in **ALL **circumstances, right?

Wrong.*

In fact, in material reality, 1 + 1 =/= 2 if we are adding two velocities in material reality.

This is important, because Aquinas purports to rise from observation of material reality – NOT from a hypothetical, non-existent world where, say, .75 c + .75 c = 1.5 c – to the even higher reality of God, the creator of the material reality.

The bottom line is that the existence of beings is merely a raw, inherently and dramatically ambiguous fact without the illumination of faith. If existence of beings always implied the existence of a higher being, then the existence of God, a being, would imply the existence of a HIGHER god, and so on. (An interestingly Gnostic error – the Ophite Gnostics and Barbelognostics both taught that the God of the Christians and Jews was a semi-divine, very stupid, very rash, semi-demonic “demiurge,” 13 levels down from the top-level God, First Man, in the cloud-like Gnostic “pleroma.” They gave the Judeo-Christian God/demon the name “Ialdabaoth,” among other names.)

In other words, YOU, YOURSELF, disagree that existence of beings necessarily implies existence of a higher being, simply because you, yourself, recognize and readily agree that God, Himself – the thing to be proven – violates the rule.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Physically the “actual infinite” would be a singularity.

that’s not what i meant.

an “actual infinite” in the sense in which i was using the term is simply what it sounds like: a set of an infinite number of things that actually exists. more abstractly, transfinite math utilizes actual infinites as parts of its formalism, which is nonetheless just a mathematical models which is not supposed (or wasn’t supposed by cantor and other mathematical luminaries) to have any ontological significance.

without going into the vagaries of transfinite math, the basic idea is that there is a hierachy of infinite sets, the first of which is the set of natural numbers, the cardinality of which is called aleph-null, or http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/aleph.gif0*.* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/aleph.gif0 is the number for all sets that stand in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers, like the prime and rational numbers.

now, we know that these actual infinites can’t exist because of the numerous absurdities that would follow, like hilbert’s hotel (named after the prominent mathematician david hilbert). imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests. you arrive and ask for a room. after being informed that the hotel is full, the hotelier nonetheless says “no problem” and just puts the guy in room 1 into room 2, from room 2 into room 3, and so on to infinity, leaving you with an extra room into which you are placed by the manager. this same process can be repeated as many times as you please, each time leaving you with the same number of occupants as before - http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/aleph.gif.

it gets worse. imagine now that everyone in the odd-numbered rooms left, so that only rooms {2,4,6,8…} remained full - if there could be such a thing as actual infinites, then there would be no fewer people in the hotel than there were before the odds left…

there are many, many more such examples, each more absurd than the last, and all of which militate against the existence of an actual infinite.

AnAtheist:

Unfortunate for the cosmological argument, quantum effects happen without a cause.

i mentioned this objection already. all that the current state of experimental quantum mechanics shows is that we don’t know the cause of some quantum events. that’s what the data shows, anyway. there are, of course, interpretations of the data that stipulate that there are, in fact, no causes for these events, but there are also interpretations according to which there are causes which may eventually be discovered.

and, as i said, it seems to make no sense to abandon something like the causal principle in favor of a theory about which we are far, far less certain. i mean, science only makes sense as the search for causes (how could you so much as conceive of an experiment that does not depend for its efficacy on the principle of causality?)

 

[BibleReader]

AnAtheist:

I agree with the rest of your post, but the quoted piece is wrong.
1+1=2 is by definition always true. That is what the operator + on natural numbers and the digits 1 and 2 mean.

In objective reality you cannot ***add ***two velocities, because the sum of two velocuties does not exist. Which is mainly due to the fact discussed elsewhere in this thread that space and time are ***not **an infinite and absolute reference frame. The operator + cannot be used, instead you have to use the mentioned Lorentz-transformation v = (v1+v2)/(1+v1v2/c^2).

Do you see the difference?

By the way, I saw your adjustment of my language, and I can live with that adjustment.

But consider the possibility that when you call yourself an atheist, and stop dead in your philosophical tracks when it comes to answering the question, “Should I believe?,” and for no good reason don’t try to make the “great leap,” you are cheating yourself out of the greatest adventure life holds out for us.

 

[john_doran]

BibleReader:

Hi, Phil.

There are only two kinds of “proofs.” Deductive proofs, which ostensibly generate “certainty,” and inductive proofs, which don’t pretend to generate certainty.

Do you know of any others? Honest: Do you know of any others?

abductive proofs.

of course, if all you mean to do is establish an exhaustive disjunction of proofs that are certain and proofs that are not, then, no, there are no others.

in fact, depending on what you mean by “certain”, i would say there aren’t any of those, either.

BibleReader:

Aquinas’ “proofs” for God’s existence are overtly invalid inductive proofs, structured to look like deductive proofs.

they are not invalid - the conclusion follows straightforwardly from the premises.

if anything, they are unsound, which means that one or more of the premises is false.

BibleReader:

In an inductive proof, one looks at a domain, “A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y,” and says, “Look! Look! A has a particular characteristic, B has the same characteristic, C has the same characteristic,” and so on, until he says, “And Y has the same characteristic; THEREFORE, I induce that Z has the same characteristic!” In Aquinas’ proof, he looks at the domain, concludes that all are caused effects, and instead of inducing that THEREFORE God has the same characteristic – God is another caused effect," he jumps to, “THEREFORE, God is an UN-caused effect.” His conclusion violates the inductions premise, caused (not UN-caused) effects.

look, man - this is totally and completely not the structure of aquinas’ proofs. at all. why do you keep insisting that it is? i have even provided you with the source text; it’s difficult to understand how even a cursory reading of what aquinas actually said could lead one to summarize it in the way you seem determined to do.

causation is a principle for aquinas - not the conclusion of a bit of reasoning, inductive, or otherwise.

his argument is, quite simply, if something is caused, then it must ultimately be caused by an uncaused cause; something is caused; therefore there is an uncaused cause.

he draws this conclusion not because he makes some ridiculously sophomoric logical error, but because it follows logically from his premises.

now you may want to question the truth of those premises, but i can assure you that the argument is deductively valid.

BibleReader:

For instance, 1 + 1 always, ALWAYS, **ALWAYS **= 2, in **ALL **circumstances, right?

Wrong.

In objective reality, additions of two velocities **NEVER **add up to two velocities. In objective reality, something called the Lorenz Transformation governs reality, such that the addition of Velocity 1 and Velocity 1 always adds up to **LESS THAN **Velocity 2.

you are equivocating. “1+1=2” as a piece of mathematical formalism is necessarily true.

but 1+1=2 is not even remotely synonymous with your example, which, incidentally, doesn’t even make any obvious sense.

BibleReader:

Aquinas posited that on the Earth we see, effects are always caused.

This, too, **APPEARS TO BE **fundamentally wrong. Quantum behavior – the behavior of subatomic particles – SEEMS TO BE fundamentally random and uncaused.

“APPEARS TO BE"and "SEEMS TO BE” are important terms, here, because what Aquinas purports to do in his “proofs” of God’s existence is jump from OUR OBSERVATIONS OF APPARENT reality to the higher, more real **SPIRITUAL **reality.

The observations are different than Aquinas assumed that they would be.

again, not true - the observations are just evidence for conclusions; there is nothing about the data in and of itself that entails that there are acausal events. in order to jump from the data to that conclusion, you need a heuristic device into which to place the data. and the “acausal quantum interpretation” is certainly not the only available one. not by a long-shot.

 

[Sherlock]

John and Phil,

I do think that discussion is hopeless with these particular individuals, but I did post your formulation ("an actual infinite cannot exist…) and received the following response. May I very humbly ask how you would respond to this?

“The law of identity tells us that everything that exists is something, something specific and limited. The notion of an entity of, say, infinite size, is a logical contradiction since it would not be any specific size. So, we can reject the notion of an infinitely big entity; likewise, we can reject the notion of an entity with any infinite characteristics. However, a “beginningless” series of events is not an entity. Such a series of events does not constitute the existence of infinity. Not all of the events exist simultaneously, hence we are not postulating the existence of infinity. We are postulating an open-ended series of events, with no limitations as to a beginning or ending. The obvious analogy is numbers. There is no such thing as an infinite number, but there is also no limit to how small they can be or how large they can be – they form an open-ended progression.Thus, there is nothing contradictory in the notion of an eternal universe, for it does not require the existence of infinity.”

 

[john_doran]

Sherlock:

John and Phil,

I do think that discussion is hopeless with these particular individuals, but I did post your formulation ("an actual infinite cannot exist…) and received the following response. May I very humbly ask how you would respond to this?

“The law of identity tells us that everything that exists is something, something specific and limited. The notion of an entity of, say, infinite size, is a logical contradiction since it would not be any specific size. So, we can reject the notion of an infinitely big entity; likewise, we can reject the notion of an entity with any infinite characteristics. However, a “beginningless” series of events is not an entity. Such a series of events does not constitute the existence of infinity. Not all of the events exist simultaneously, hence we are not postulating the existence of infinity. We are postulating an open-ended series of events, with no limitations as to a beginning or ending. The obvious analogy is numbers. There is no such thing as an infinite number, but there is also no limit to how small they can be or how large they can be – they form an open-ended progression.Thus, there is nothing contradictory in the notion of an eternal universe, for it does not require the existence of infinity.”

if the universe is actually without beginning, then an actually infinite amount of time must already have expired,so this solution fails to avoid the absurdities of positing an existent actual infinite.

what’s more, it runs afoul of another basic principle: an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. in other words, it is impossible to complete an actual infinite series by “passing through” each member of the series. but this is exactly what would have to have happened if the universe extended into the infinite past.

for one thing, it makes no intuitive sense to propose that one can actually finish counting to infinity, since no matter what number one reaches, one can simply add one more. in the same way, an actual infinite number of moments is being added to each passing second without increasing the cardinality of the set of those moments. which is absurd. in other words, no greater a number of seconds will have elapsed one million years from now as have elapsed up to the current point in time - namely, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/aleph.gif.

as another illustration, take bertrand russell’s tristram shandy example, a man who writes his autobiography so slowly that it takes him one year just to record the events of a single day of his life. now, if tristram could write for an actually infinite amount of time, it would follow that shandy could actually complete his autobiography, since the number of days and the number of years would stand in a one-to-one correspondence, and both would be infinite. but this, too, is plainly absurd, since it is self-evident that tristram would just get farther and farther behind with each passing day, until, at some point in the infinitely distant future, he would be infinitely far behind.

furthermore, if an actually infinite number of moments has passed, then it has passed at every point in the past, no matter how far back you go. and if that’s true, then tristram should have completed his writing at every point in the past, which would mean that you would never be able to observe him finishing his book, since he would already have finished. and that’s absurd, too.

anyway. this is just a long-winded way of observing that,a beginningless universe entails the existence of an actually infinite number of past moments of time. which is impossible.

therefore, the universe has a beginning. QED.

 

[neophyte]

This has been interesting. I’ve a few thoughts, but I’ll limit myself to two:

BibleReader:

The question is not the accuracy of the translation down to the scintilla. The question is, Structurally, in all of Aquinas’ arguments for God’s existence, does God fit in the premise?..

I fail to see how one can expect to come to rigorously logical results if one is so willing to accept sloppy language. The question is precisely the accuracy of the translation down to the scintilla, otherwise it is mere posturing to object to the structure of Aquinas’ argument.

AnAtheist:

There no observation of this “outside” (and by definition, no observation can be made; if it would, the outside became the inside). Why assume something without observation?

Exactly, which is why the conclusion that there is no “outside” is extremely premature. There are no observations that indicate that the “outside” doesn’t exist.

 

[Sherlock]

John,

Thank you so-o-o-o much, that helps me enormously. Following Ayn Rand is bound to wreak havoc on one’s rationality, and so I doubt this will provoke any response more substantial than “arbitrary assertion, arbitrary assertion, arbitrary assertion…” from the Objectivists I’m dealing with. However, your explanation certainly helps me understand more clearly: this has been an excellent demonstration of the usefulness of this forum. Thanks again.

 

[john_doran]

no problem at all…

good luck.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

look, einstein simply assumed that there was no aether because he was a student of the ferociously positivistic ernst mach, and then postulated the relativity principle and the constancy of the velocity of light as axioms of the theory he would consequently derive.

This is a common misconception and completely wrong. That lightspeed is constant in any reference frame was measured long before Einstein (e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment). The Lorentz-transformation was derived from those experiments to match the observable reality. Einstein made the theoretical foundation for those observations, basically “the natural laws are always the same, no matter what reference frame one uses”, not the other way round.

 

[AnAtheist]

neophyte:

Exactly, which is why the conclusion that there is no “outside” is extremely premature. There are no observations that indicate that the “outside” doesn’t exist.

There will never be an observation, that a non-existing thing doesn’t exist. One can only observe existing things. **You cannot conclude from non-observance to existance. **

Of course you cannot conclude from non-observance to non-existance either, only to a agnostic view. Practically there is no difference between “I don’t know, because I cannot observe,” and “There is nothing, because I cannot observe”. Still this not-knowable nothing (the “outside”) has no **influence **whatsoever, otherwise it would be observable through this influence and its existance would be proven. If there is no influence whatsoever, it can be treated as non-existing.