51. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196043 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 8:41 am

bamboo, epinephrine et al...

I think we can agree that mathematics is a discipline.... it certainly is (alongside logic, set theory, category theory etc) the study of structures and relations.

(an analogue of the following is true of logic, set theory, category theory etc as well)

Mathematics uses symbols to refer to abstract entities like numbers, groups, functions etc. whose ontological status is highly disputed (nominalism, platonism, conceptualism etc) and discovers, analyses relations between them.

These arise from the axioms and the inference rules in highly complicated ways. That is what the form of a mathematical proof is: to show that a theorem follows from the axioms and allowed operations.

Thus

I don't see how mathematics could be any different to what it is. To say that we invent it suggests that we have some control over how it works. That is manifestly absurd.

it not quite true. It is not absurd.
Chose different axioms and allowed operations, and you get different results.

An example would be the difference between bivalent and paraconsistent logic, or between Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with and without the axiom of choice.

That the language of mathematics is a construct is entirely uncritical.

The reasons why mathematics can describe the world so well are, I think, twofold:
1) All observation is theory laden. To a certain degree, we could not make observations about the physical world that are not describable in our mathematics because we can only make sense of our perceptions - make them into observation - by already applying the framework of logic/mathematic
and
2)
I. The axioms and allowed operations seem to have indeed some connection to the strucutre of ontology - they seem to be so that the structure of "what there is" is captured at least in certain respects by it. This is an intuitive interpretation, but it would be naive to assume that this has to be so, because the following could also be true without this (I) being true:
II. The axioms and allowed operations have some connection to the structure of the ontology/ontologies the contraints of the mind in general allow us to conceptualize

We can, through 1) be fairly certain that something at least roughly equivalent to II) is the case whether or not I) is the case as well. But given II), we can never in principle know whether I) is also the case or not.

Anyway - the "world out there" consists of concrete entities standing in certain relations. The relations between the physical objects can be expressed wonderfully by mathematics, which is one reason it is so fascinating and awe-inspiring. But abstracts objects either have to reduce to concepts which can be reduced to operations/functions in neural networks interacting with each other and their collective environment (physicalism), or you get pluralism, so that there would be a realm of abstract, non-spatiotemporal objects either somehow interfering with physical entities in a causal way (and we can have no clear conception of causality in that respect), or there are indeed only ideas/concepts/abstract objects - and no concerete objects, no substance.

Both seem to me to be absolutely untenable - max takes the latter position which essentially says there is no substance, just structure of abstract objects. And that I think is not merely wrong but meaningless - we cannot coherently conceive of that.

I am not saying mathematics is "only names", or that it is arbitrary. The language of it is - but it is a construct, certainly - that models a subset of the structures and relations that are possible at all. That the axioms and inference rules of mathematics, of logic, set theory - of everything that models relations lead to such incredibly applicable results is (at least this is my theory) due to our brains being product of the natural world that have evolved to model the world around them. They are - in their general way of making sense of information - shaped by how the world really is, what structures and relations obtain. The form of these also implies the possibility of non-actualized structures and relations. From this, it seems to me, to be "natural" (though definitely not less amazing or awe-inspiring) that our minds should be capable of constructing systems like those of mathematics, logic, set theory etc - and that many of those apply wonderfully to the world.

One last point. I think we all know that science never gives us full knowledge of how the world is or even what it consists of (for more on that, see an entry on my blog titled "Science works" on http://mphil.livejournal.com) fundamentally. We construct theories to construct models of worlds that fit our perceptions. They can be falsified, but never verified - because we cannot in principle know that the next test will not prove that something about our theory is false.

Mathematics have been incredibly apt to formulate such theories. But to be certain that therefore mathematics models the world would mean to be certain that the world is as our current theories tell us - and that would be quite arrogant.

This does not at all diminish the fascination of mathematics or the awe at its usefulness... but it provides a tentative explanation and a reason to be careful not to make the arrogant assumption that we know what and how the world really is.


Cheers guys,
hope I didn't bore you!
-Mike

52. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195871 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 12:16 am

Did I mention that I hate it when some people use "philosophy" as some kind of dirty word? Ignorance is really rampant, isn't it? This is -sorry- just like a creationist who has no idea of science saying it has no value.

Not to mention that we all make metaphysical propositions - "God does not exist", "(only) material things exist/do not exist" etc. for example. Does not mean we have to commit to metaphysical entities. Also, who ever gave anyone the idea that Philosophy is pretty much nothing more than Platonism? Platonism hasn't been very popular for quite some time.

Anyway - I am not doubting the competence as a cosmologist of Max Tegmark... but he is doing philosophy here, and dreadful philosophy at that.

This is not just Platonism - it's property monism, or perhaps even idealistic monism. Really dreadful.
And actually not very consequent either: Mathematics is a Language with propositions expressed in statements of that language. We use propositions to make claims about the world. It is one thing to say that everything has a structure which mathematics can describe (and that alone is highly problematic, though at the base level I might agree) - but it's quite another to say that the language of mathematics(and logic and set-theory etc) is not that which we use to describe structures of something, but that this is what the "world is composed of". If everything was describable through related statements - would the real world thus BE nothing over and above statements then? All structure - expressed by employing abstract entities - no substance.

Nah, that's worse than Platonism.

53. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194551 by MPhil on June 17, 2008 at 12:19 am

Fanusi,

don't have much time... so my reply won't have much detail:

First, spare me your snide and denigrating tone.

By "not the new Hitler", I was criticizing your completely asinine claim that the radical muslims are the greatest evil in any dimension the world has ever seen. No one denies they're a very serious problem, but they don't have the structure or means to overthrow governments of first world powers, to wage Blitzkrieg and take control of countries not already under their control in a matter of weeks or days, they don't have an organized Armed force that acts so systematically as to make this possible.
Thus - they are not as great a threat to everyone living in the West as Hitler was.

Your comment about nationalism is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen... nationalism has a very strict definition. You try to defeat my claim by attempting to define Nationalism as nothing more than in-group morality which is necessary for stability and persistence of the group. What utter bullshit! Nationalism is pride in one's country or culture, often excessive in nature, it is unquestioning idealization of the nation (an artificial entity unlike the aggregate of people itself) with beliefs in its superiority and devaluation of foreigners. Taking pride in something one has not achieved oneself is never justified. Persistence and Stability of the Group does not necessitate any (excessive or not) pride, or for that matter any de-valuation of others. Nationalism is entirely artifical and a political tool. You obviously fail to distinguish between Nationalism and the individual's contribution to society by aiding others and the groups capability for defence with unjustified pride.

Refresh my memory - when was the last time a US marine bombed a Mosque, or hacked the head off a 9-year old girl, or shot... Am I going to have to go on like this, or are you going to drop the inane moral equivalence?

Nah, they do it on a grander scale... systematic torture, de-humanizing one's enemies in the mindset of the people engaged in the operation, violating international laws, denying even potential (not confirmed) enemies basic human rights, disregard for Genever convention, executions, restricting the rights and liberties of one's people. Waging a war of aggression (not Afghanistan, but Iraq), exempting those high up responsible for this from prosecution, thereby abandoning effectively the rule of law over all, which - as you should know - was one of the greatest achievements of constitutionality.

Don't forget the hypocrisy and irony either... claiming to be defending liberty and justice by abandoning those to a large degree and then getting people to support such courses of action through nationalism, the unjustified (because not self-achieved), excessive pride in one's culture or nation with simultaneous de-valuation of others - by idolizing that which just sank so low.

Sorry, if you don't see this, you're hopelessly naive.

Finally, Islam is the single greatest retrograde force in human history. If it were not for the blight of Islam, all of the Middle East and North Africa would now be First World (having inherited the Graeco-Latin civilisation as much, or more so than Europe), and we would have been spared the endless genocides and miseries inflicted by Islam. Also, given that the Muslims helped plunge us into the Dark Ages by burning the Library of Alexandria, I think it's safe to say that Islam's influence has been far more terrible than (gasp!) Bush's.

-The Christian's destroyed the Library of Alexandria as well.
-In the middle-ages, when Islam had its enlightenment, it was Christianity that held back Europe, and much of scientific (almost all of the medical-anatomic for example) knowledge came from the Muslim world.
-Don't forget the mass-murders and miseries inflicted by the almighty Roman Catholic Church.
-The greatest threat to the Western world right now is its own ignorance, including the flames it fans around the world, creating more instability.

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194406 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 5:54 pm

I know Frankus... didn't mean to criticize your intent of wanting to make the distinction between "guess/opinion" and "theory" clear. Just my usual, pedant self :)

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194399 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I don't agree with that definition of "Theory"...

It fails to distinguish between a theory, its potential Models, its actual models and its intended applications. It claims theories have to be verifiable, when there's a good argument to be made that falsifiability is all we can ever get - we can only verify phenomena and data intersubjectively, but can never verify theories, only corroborate them. Also, it's not entire theories that get falsified, but rather a research-program can be either stagnant, regressive or progressive.

There's much more to it than that - but I'm really tired right now :)

Oh, and yes - I am a pedant :)

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194378 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Why do you keep avoiding the question?

Even Dawkins himself admitted to intelligent design in the great Ben Stein movie "Expelled".

What a masterpiece.

Okay, that's it.

I simply cannot believe that this one is for real any longer. Those comments could only be made by some atheist having a good (but sadistic) laugh in the course of posing as a total fuckwit theist.
Perhaps I am too generous in refusing to believe that any person could be that ridiculously stupid... I don't know. Perhaps it's Poe's Law in action, but wouldn't humanity still be better off if this one was a hoax?

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194362 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Since this is generally an off-topic thread...


I just remembered a wonderful little sci-fi story by Daniel Dennet. It poses very real philosophical questions and is - I think, quite fun to read:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/where_am_i.html

What do you think?

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194353 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Ah, yes, God, Creation, Suffering and Salvation.... the epitome of Münchhausen's by Proxy

59. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194287 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Some of that I knew...

What we should tell Christian theists, then, would be something like: "There is no justification for the assumption that the Jesus YOU BELIEVE IN ever existed. Some person to which almost all of the stuff important for Christianity - a mix of earlier myths - was later ascribed most likely did, but this is not the Jesus of the Bible, and not the Jesus in which you believe."

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194271 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm

phil rimmer,

sadly - I do not know of any pictorial representation of the library of Alexandria. Would be nice to have one, though.

61. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194264 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Billy Sands,

That Story reminds me of the wonderful story


"Thank Goodness"

by Daniel Dennett:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html


He had a dissection of the aorta - and barely survived. But he recovered fully thanks to the goodness of fellow humans.

Friends told him they prayed for him - he had to forgive them, and just managed to refrain from noting

"Thanks, but did you also sacrifice a goat?"

62. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194241 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Thanks, Falcon. That's the kind of detail I wanted to know.

But then what attributes are true of the person to which these copied elements were ascribed?
Numbers and names of followers and that's all? Not even that? More?

If you have information on that, I'd love to read it.

63. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194233 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Fanusi,

Sadly, for the American right (at least those in power and those supporting them), your number 3 applies perfectly. And they are the ones using a culture of nationalism to get people to support violations of human rights (in order to defend human rights, supposedly), of international treaties, crimes against humanity and violation of the constitution. They are willing to use sink to the level of their enemies.

Nationalism is always naive and never justified. Not only is it notoriously exploitable in order to get people to support gruesome acts, it is always a de-valuation of others.

I don't like Michael Moore, his style is devious and some of his conclusions are wrong. But he does also address very real problems. He does it badly, and all this is tainted by his despicable methods. But there are others who do this far better than him. "Taxi to the Dark Side" and "No End in Sight" are two examples.

Hitchens completely fails to impress me as a political commentator, btw.

Oh dear, I can smell it - this is in danger of becoming an excessive, mudslinging debate on things I have had my fair share of debating long ago.

And this: "Michael Moore is an apologist and frontman for the most evil murderers this world has ever seen."

Is flat out not true. The Radical Muslims are not "the new Hitler" or Stalin, or Khmer Rouge.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that the Bush-government has had a far broader and more severe effect on the global human rights situation than the Islamist - partially by creating more of the latter, partially by completely throwing human rights and freedoms and international law out of the window.

Anyway - I've had this debate far too often. I have got enough on my hands moderating and educating extreme leftists and battling the religiously deluded :)

64. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194214 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm

The Library of Alexandria - don't remind me. Even thinking about this cultural catastrophe makes me shudder.

Perhaps a stylized logo portraying the Library of Alexandria could become a new logo of anti-theism :) Saying at the same time "never again shall something like this be destroyed" and "look what humanity can achieve through rationality".

The more people like you post, the more we hone and refine our arguments in support of reason

I think only arguments we haven't answered before (much less hundreds of times) have that effect. Responding to him now is just a waste of time I fear.

65. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194200 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Come on guys - this guy has pressed the "reset-button" (as epeeist so eloquently put it) at least 10 times by now - he's way past strike 40 now.

We have presented the evidence, explained his errors - he has proven himself to be completely resistant to reason.

His last comment was unoriginal - the accusations have been met and he simply keeps repeating them. This is trolling. It deserves flagging - and certainly no longer deserves any responses.

66. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194180 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:00 pm

That's going a bit far. You don't have to believe in the fantastical stories of the Bible but I think you'll be in the substantial minority if you argue that Jesus never existed.

A man named Jesus who claimed to perform miracles most likely existed. I doubt there are too many classical historians (myself included) who will doubt this.

I am very much willing to believe this.

Perhaps you can help me... this is what I have heard:

-There were many leaders of religious sects around that time
-Some of them were a nuisance to the Roman Empire
-There are no disinterested historical accounts that can be determined to refer to any Jesus of Nazareth.


And then, it is evident that much of the Jesus myth is copied from earlier myths (Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, Hercules etc):

* Born of virgin on December 25;
* Stars appeared at their births;
* visited by Magi from the east;
* turned water into wine;
* healed the sick;
* cast out demons;
* performed miracles;
* transfigured before followers;
* rode donkeys into the city;
* betrayed for 30 pieces of silver;
* celebrated communal meal with bread and wine;
* which represented the savior's flesh and blood;
* killed on a cross or tree;
* descended into hell;
* resurrected on third day;
* ascended into heaven;
* to forever sit beside Father God and become divine Judge.

I'm sure there were many people around that time who were leaders of cults. By what properties would we pick out "the historic Jesus" as the historic Jesus?
Is it something like number of followers, birthplace, names of followers, having been a nuisance to the Roman Empire etc...

If you could enlighten me, I'd be glad.

67. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194168 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm

On the right side?

I meant that solely with regards to being highly critical of nationalism and right-wing politics.

68. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194159 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Well to answer this question you must first understand that there are two types of evolution; Microevolution and Macroevolution.

You've got some nerve talking to someone who is a doctor of biology that way. Do you honestly think Steve has never heard of "Microevolution vs Macroevolution"? Do you honestly think that ANYONE on here hasn't heard about this before? Do you honestly think we haven't heard all that bullshit about this before?

And of all people you address this post to Steve? A doctor of biology... have you read the link he provided? What you write about it makes me think you didn't.

How about you sit down with a bunch of experts on this subjects - people who hold a degree in biology. Then you should ASK them "What about microevolution vs macroevolution? - that speciation-stuff does seem incredible to a layperson like me." Then you LISTEN to their explanations, get shown the evidence (like that one Steve's blog he kindly linked to for you). Maybe you ask some more questions. So you LISTEN and try to UNDERSTAND... and accept that these people are far more knowledgeable concerning this than a layperson. And when they have explained it to you - you accept it.

That would be the intellectually honest thing to do. But no, you come here and try to lecture a doctor of biology about macroevolution. You claim to know better than thousands of people who have put a lot of effort into studying this, who have devoted their lives to explanatory progression in the understanding of life.

Can you really not see how incredibly arrogant this is?

You ought to apologize.

69. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #194092 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 12:11 pm

So what you're basically saying is that I'm talking complete crap.

That's not how I see it...

70. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194080 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:59 am

You mean to say polite is better than the hack and slash approach to stupid arguments?

Not quite - I love to hack and slash no-good arguments. Tear them to shreds with the razor sharp tool of reason. I just think that personally, I myself shouldn't make so many snide and denigrating remarks while I'm tearing the arguments apart.

71. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194071 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:43 am

a useful provocational technique.

Well, if you want to scare them away - or make them more angry (and sometimes I guess that's a goal that is acceptable), then I'm sure it can be useful :)

I can't claim to be any where near as imaginative with it as the Rev. Dark or Diacanu.

They do have a real talent for that, don't they? :D I find it highly amusing.

72. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194070 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:39 am

Thanks, I just replied.

73. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194065 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:28 am

Michael Moore great for a factual movie?

Are you serious? This guy is a manipulator and a propagandist who uses every trick in the book to get people to agree with a position he takes - manipulating interviews, cutting out-of-context, juxtaposing certain scenes to imply a conclusion.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Bush-administration should spend life in prison for crimes against humanity and potentially for treason because of what they did to the constitution.

Michael Moore is largely on the right side, but his methods are despicable and his claims often not substantiated by the evidence he presents.

There are far better people creating documentaries.

Have you seen "Taxi to the Dark Side" or "No End in Sight"? The first was presented entirely objectively, but I almost couldn't bear to watch it. It made me physically sick and enraged beyond description.

Also, as far as I know there already was a documentary about the Roman Catholic Church's practice of playing the shell-game with pedophiles.

74. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194061 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:09 am

I have been strongly influenced by epeeist on this. Sometimes, with the best intentions, we let such people run rings around us. We end up pandering to them, answering every question.

That makes sense... sounds right. Still, somehow, epeeist manages not to "lose his cool" over the irrational people coming here.

Once I get really annoyed by something like this, I can be very dismissive, harsh and insulting - and while the adrenaline-rush of it feels good, I don't like myself when I'm like that.

I think we need to ask why they feel qualified to discuss science at all - we don't let them put a foot in the door, as it where, unless they are polite and agree to rational discussion.

Yes, but we should - at the same time - promote inquisitive interaction of non-scientists with scientists, to get people to develop an interest in science and rational investigation in general. Asking questions is wonderful - even if they are critical of well-established things. True enlightenment can only come from learning.

So we should encourage learning and discussion while discouraging arrogance. Your latest blog-entry does a great job at exposing the arrogance of theism/"supernaturalism"/religion.

To encourage learning might even be harder.

To have carto (and others) join in with that would be wonderful.

Yes, I didn't mean to exclude others - Carto's post just reminded me that I wanted to ask him this for a while now.

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194051 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 10:35 am

Diacanu

... wonderful!

He's for every one of us stand for every one of us
he'll save with a mighty hand every man
every woman every child with a mighty flash

General Kala, Steve Zara approaching
-what do you mean "Steve Zara approaching"?
Open fire… all weapons
despatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body
Steve!!! Za-raaa!…
Zara's ALIIIIVEE!

Steve!!! Za-raa!
he'll save every one of us

Just a man with a man's courage he knows
nothing but a man he can never fail
no one but the pure in heart may find the golden grail ... of science

76. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194045 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 10:26 am

Steve

- okay, that was a prime example of irrationality, but at least the attempt to discuss arguments with his partner is an element (however insufficient) of rationality.

Maybe I'm being too generous. But I think I personally could improve the way I appear to others by being less harsh - same critique, same directness, but a little less cynical perhaps.

And I still think that personally, the tone I used was a little unwarranted, although understandable.


Carto,

[...]is how we determine which theory is the truth.

Hmm... I don't know. That would imply verifiablity.
I'd say that's how we determine which explanatory approach (research-program) doesn't work.

And that's how we get explanatory progression and real explanations, which is something that - as we know - religion can never provide.

Anyway - as always, I enjoy your wit and eloquence. Thank you for that. For half a year now you managed to make me laugh, to provide intellectually stimulating contributions and valuable insight. I know this is terribly cliché... sorry :)

Anyway - perhaps we could convince you to join Steve, Brian, me and others on the "blogsphere" - and if you don't want your own, I (and I would say others as well) would love to get your input on our posts as a commentator. What do you think?

77. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194027 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 9:45 am

Okay - I just thought about this.

Yes, ketch22 has shown some arrogance... but I think the tone I adopted was due to being fed up with the same old same old, as if we hadn't rebutted such arguments ages ago.

We have to give him credit for at least attempting to confront rational criticisms and attempting to use real arguments.

That's more than most people do. He's certainly more intellectually honest than wooter and/or Robertson.

That's not saying that his arguments are good. But to someone who hasn't had access to the good rebuttals and/or perhaps doesn't have to capability to evaluate them (when they are really complex) and/or may be blinded by wanting to believe... at least he is making a serious (though insufficient) attempt at rationality.

So I say: Way to go - now analyze with all the rigor you can muster all the arguments for your position. Face the rebuttals, and if you cannot logically defeat them, change your position. That will be complete intellectual honesty.

78. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193951 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 8:35 am

Hunagarianelephant,

the point was that anything in a spacetime framework is bound by the laws of that spacetime-framework (no matter how many dimension). And of course no entity inside spacetime could be the origin thereof or of the laws that govern it.

Anything that is outside (assuming - contrafactually - that we can coherently conceive of this) of any spacetime-like framework cannot be causally active in any way.

But theism claims that God is not bound by natural laws, is not spatiotemporal, is the origin of everything etc.

But via the causation-argument, theism is in princple meaningless or false, depending on your viewpoint. In any case - it is impossible.

Theism also claims "intrinsic", metaphysically objective moral values. And Steve is right, D could not be the origin of that. In fact, we cannot have a coherent concept of such kinds of values either.

Why not? What if D has interacted with our specific planet with a view to ensuring that the human species evolving as it has, and intervened in history to get the bible written? As such D created man in - if not his own image - at least his own preference, and gave commandments through biblical figures.

This would not lead to intrinsic, metaphysically objective moral values either.

Also, assuming a deity was causally active (and thus in any spacetime framework), omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence etc don't make sense either. Such a deity can also not have teleologically designed humankind through evolution for two reasons:

1.) (Credit has to go to Steve) The outcome of some deterministic processes are not calculable in advance - in principle.

2.) As far as we know, many mutations are caused by radiation from radioactive decay, which is a genuinely random process and thus cannot be calculated in advance either.

A God like D would be a sort of LaPlace daemon, and thus incompatible with what we know of random events, Heisenberg-uncertainty etc.

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193708 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 11:44 pm

My sleep/wake-cycle is totally off again. I really need to see a doctor because of this... makes it damn near impossible to follow any schedule (such as for uni) if your sleep/wake-cycle is always off.

Diacanu,

you're right - upon rereading, it seems you didn't say that. Just goes to show, I need sleep.

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193700 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Inferences are based on faith. So therefore, Macroevoluion is a religion.

Fallacy of equivocation. Actually, inference is absolutely logically unassailable. Induction is that which never amounts to proof. But that doesn't justify calling it "faith" with the same meaning of "faith" as in "religious faith".

That is just complete arse-gravy.

81. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193699 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 11:30 pm

...oh, I forgot - and of course without positivism it would still be true that if we can know (of) something, then it is per definition natural.

But since theism has no epistemic justification, and they still make their claims - they have to invent "a different kind of knowledge". Of course they would have to lay out the exact methodology, that it is consistent, reliable and non-arbitrary.

But of course, religion is arbitrary.

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193696 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Again, if magic existed, it would be testable, and become science.

That would be positivism... and I'm afraid it's not quite true. There might be natural things we cannot grasp with science - but that doesn't give anyone any justification for inventing pseudo-explanations. It doesn't make the illogical logical and doesn't give explanatory power to that that which doesn't have explanatory power.

We need not say that there cannot exist anything that science cannot explain. It suffices to say that while there may be things which we cannot detect, we could per definition thus also never have sufficient reason to claim that any specific such thing does exist.

83. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193686 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Claim debunked ages ago - still no cogent argument for any of the five lemma epeeist has shown you need to prove before your claims hold.

Way past strike 30 by now... henceforth ignored by me.

84. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193683 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Yes - clamiing causal origin from some non-spatiotemporal realm... logically inconsistent... how logical, how rational.

85. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193682 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:34 pm

It is the only reasonable and logical explanation.

...


...


*cricket* *cricket*

...


...


*cough*

86. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193669 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:10 pm

If I joined my local Nazi party, then tried explaining to my friends and coworkers that I am not a Nazi, how well do you think that would work out for me? Just curious. I'm guessing not too well.

If it was a free choice, then no, not too well - and rightly so.

But it has no bearing on the arguments I gave...

And as for Rotkohl - no, neither. Soryy.

Anyway - good night then :)

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193666 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:07 pm

All at one time thought the world flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Majority does not represent truth.

You're right. But total evidence determines epistemic justification.

When there was no sufficient theory to explain the phenomena with heliocentrism, proclaiming it as known truth would have been unwarranted. Only when there is theoretic explanation can we make any such claim. And even then we can only claim "best current explanation" - but this is still far more than any mythology/superstition/religion can claim since the beginning of rational investigation.

Not everything needs evaluating. Somethings are just known to be the truth. The Truth, The Light and The Way.

Arguing for a position and then stating outright that there is no chance that one could be wrong... the epitome of irrationality.

As for Micro-Macro evolution...

the others are right. Even if the theory of evolution was false, assuming design would not be rational. You need independent corroboration for that.

But anyway - the distinction is quite arbitrary.

88. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193649 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:50 pm

I didn't imply (nor mean to) that you were one of those who think lederhosen and Hitler when they hear "Germany"...

The part of my comment where I spoke about such things was meant to be more general. Only the parts in specific reference to calling Ratzinger a Nazi were addressed to you.

Strangely, I never liked Sauerkraut myself :)

89. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193645 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:48 pm

mikecbraun,

that depends if you define "Nazi" via being member of an organisation, or via having certain convictions.

Per the first definition - the one you advanced - Ratzinger would necessarily have stopped being a Nazi when he left the HJ or NSDAP or Wehrmacht. But there were many people who were Nazis afterwards - and whom we can rightly call Nazis even after 1945... so the second definition makes more sense.

And in that case, Ratzinger certainly is no longer a Nazi if ever he was one.

On that subject - just as a Child completely indoctrinated into the Catholic creed from it's earliest days is not to blame for identifying itself as a Catholic in its childhood (especially if it deconverts later), not every member of the HJ (not even most) can be blamed for identifying as National-Socialist. Especially since there is really no evidence to suggest that Ratzinger continued to believe in the superiority of the German people, or "believe" in Adolf Hitler or that the thrid Reich shall remain for a thousand years - calling Ratzinger a Nazi is unwarranted.

90. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193639 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Scientific facts are only based on being the best explanation - in terms of coherency explanatory broadness, parsimony. The general standards of rationality. For any claim about something other than closed, logical systems, - in short for any claim about anything not analytically true, "best explanation" in the above way is the maximum we can achieve. That's another reason why religion is so ludicrously arrogant.

And since it rests on false inferences and logically contradictory concepts - it can never have any explanatory power.

Any potential naturalistic explanation would still be an explanation - invoking the "supernatural" never can be. But can do better than grasping at straws... we have immensely powerful theories, so well corroborated that it's ludicrous to claim they are totally off.

Macroevolution is not a warranted inference? Don't make me laugh.

91. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193636 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Yes, I see the humour - and I'm grinning. So I think it's this has been a successful attempt :)

92. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193623 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Haven't really had a read due to work and debating mit unser RtG

Naturally, - I just wanted to check whether it got sent correctly.

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193618 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Brian,

just to check... the plain E-Mail with PDF-attachment did work though, didn't it?

94. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193614 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Methinks you're right.

Seeing as calling someone a Nazi is one of the most horrible accusations one can make (and since some people tend to generalize about Germans in that way), I freely admit I'm a bit touchy when it comes to this.

Anyway - there are correct accusations against the pope that are just as bad: That he actively tried to cover up thousands of molestations is just one point of critique.

Our case against religion and the churches is much stronger when we don't make fools of ourselves by making false accusations.

95. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193611 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Brian,

sorry, accidentally flagged your last comment as "offensive" while highlighting your text... I hope Josh won't take it too seriously :/

96. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193609 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:07 pm

1. My notion was never nor is it now preconceived. If you would have read my 1st entry, it stated I started as agnostic and arrived at my notions years later. This shows you like to argue just to seem more intelligent than you possibly are.

In that case I apologize for that comment - and offer this alternative:

"If the arguments you presented honestly convinced you, you're faculties for critical evaluation are worse than I thought"

. I don't enslave philosphy, I study and use what makes sense to me. I see you using plenty of big words and philosophy to make your point as well. I know they aren't your ideas, they are far to advanced, so are you enslaving?

Quite an assumption. Actually, I am a philosopher. I have studied Philosophy of Science, Ethics, Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Language, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Logic, Epistemology. (I specialize on philosophy of mind and philosophy of religion however). How do you come to the conclusion that the arguments I use are far too advanced? Too advanced for what? A non-philosopher? Then you simply made the assumption that this applies to me.

Yes, some arguments are not mine - just as no philosopher's arguments are sui generis. That alone does not mean that I am enslaving. Using arguments to post hoc defend a preconceived notion is.

You said you didn't do this. I apologized - and I mean it. It was an unwarranted assumption on my part. I corrected it.

you are so closed to other ideas that you probably would never get me until you have no choice at the end.

Nah, it just means that I have seen this too often and don't have the patience of epeeist :)

I will have you know that - as a philosopher - I wouldn't have been able to make it through the first semester if my mind was so closed as to never allow for other ideas. I change my mind when arguments against my position hold up to rational evaluation and, weighed against the complete evidence, lower the epistemic justification for my position sufficiently enough... as every rational person should.

97. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193597 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 8:57 pm

If time has a start, then there is logically a before.

Bullshit. "Before" is a concept that necessitates time. Only something that has a beginning IN time can have a "prior" and thus a non-quantum cause.

Our language simply breaks down when talking about that. Time has a finite past, but to use the term "beginning of time" is false, because "beginning" is another term that only makes sense in a time-framework.

I already did. You included it in your quote.

Laughable - you were presupposing it. For someone who tries to give the appearance of knowing something about logic and argumentation in general, this is a really pathetic and embarrassing mistake - you made the "appeal to emotion" fallacy... "Surely that MUST have been OBJECTIVELY wrong"... "We just KNOW"...

As I said - nice try. Better luck next time.

98. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193592 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Just so Josh won't get annoyed, I'm still providing a translation of the above (people have inadvertently flagged me thrice in my time here - so far nothing happened, but I don't wanna temp the admin:):

"I would have no problem with that [talking in German]. But I'm not sure if it doesn't violate the rules of this comments-section. I mean, how is Josh supposed to know that I'm not throwing insults around like a madman right now :)

Yes, my goodness - even as a liberal lefty German you don't have to like it when people generalize horribly. That's why I addressed this - it's all for the sake of enlightenment.

And seeing as for most people, the only thing they know about Germany is Hitler (12 years out of a thousand-year history), and often, even the knowledge of that is superficial [I wasn't saying this was the case here], so I thought it appropriate to do a little educational work here :)"

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193584 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 8:42 pm

O noes. Not the "if you can't convince them, try to analyze them"-tactic. How boring. And, in good tradition, entirely unverifiable and unfalsifiable for RtG. Whatever we say or do - that claim can always be made, no matter how wrong.

When people are so caught up in the narrow-mindedness of their doctrine(s), I can see how that will make it impossible to even understand how someone could be so strongly opposed to one's position.

100. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193580 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 8:37 pm

mordacious1 -

hätte ich kein Problem damit. Bin mir aber nicht sicher, ob es nicht gegen die Regeln der Comments-section verstößt. Ich meine, wie soll Josh herausfinden, ob ich hier nicht gerade wie wild fluche und Leute beleidige :)

Ja, meine Güte - selbst als ein links-liberaler Deutscher muss man es nicht gut finden, wenn so furchtbar generalisiert wird. Deshalb hab ich das aufgegriffen.... alles Aufklärungsarbeit.

Und angesichts der Tatsache, dass die meisten Leute über Deutschland nur von Hitler wissen (12 Jahre aus einer tausend-jährigen Geschichte), und davon auch nicht gerade viel, hielt ich es für durchaus angebracht, hier etwas Aufklärungsarbeit zu leisten.

And no, I think we should stick to English :)