[quote]wirewound wrote:
That’s just a chemical reaction talking.
[/quote]
Excellent argument. I would like to subscribe to your magazine.
[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
I don’t believe I’d need a plan, I’d just put the pieces together in the way they would fit. Kinda like putting a puzzle together with the pieces face down.
You have to think it before you do it. Otherwise everything is just random.[/quote]
Everything is random. This is a deterministic universe that had a random set of conditions as a starting point. The random-ness propagates.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
If and object is dropped close to the earth’s surface, it will fall at 9.8m/s^2… even in a vacuum.
[/quote]
thanks mbm
Lorisco,
i’ll say this one more time, you have no idea what your talking about. do you by chance actually know how to derive the acceleration of gravity close to the earth’s surface? i can do that off the top of my head…
my point in asking about the derivation is this: if you actually knew how to derive the acceleration of gravity close to the earth’s surface, you’d then actually understand exactly what this is, and what it means.
also, if you actually knew anything about physics (and maybe drew a force diagram once in your life), you’d understand the difference between the acceleration of gravity near the earth’s surface and the acceleration of an object near the earth’s surface. (if you’d like to know, go take a physics class) the former is a consequence of the gravity force equation and newton’s second law, the latter is a the result of the net forces on the object.
anyway, though no physicist would ever word it this way, you might actually say that 9.8 m/s^2 IS the acceleration of gravity close to the earth’s surface in a vacuum. which makes your example quite funny.
i’ll put this in much simpler terms for you. your latest example makes absolutely no sense, and in no way supports what your trying to claim.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Organised religion and true belief in God are incompatible. Religion demands that you accept the existence of God sans proof. Only someone who has direct experience of God should believe in God.[/quote]
That rules out most people, unless you are using the phrase “direct experience” very loosely.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
I don’t believe I’d need a plan, I’d just put the pieces together in the way they would fit. Kinda like putting a puzzle together with the pieces face down.
You have to think it before you do it. Otherwise everything is just random.
Everything is random. This is a deterministic universe that had a random set of conditions as a starting point. The random-ness propagates. [/quote]
In the case of determinism. Nothing is random as it’s course would be predetermined. The cause then, of the resultant effect would not be the preceding event, but that which is the determining factor.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
pat wrote:
The point is to establish “will”. By definition, an uncaused-cause must both be uncaused itself, and be able to cause. That doesn’t meant the totality of “It’s” existence is required to be a cause, just that some part of it is has the ability to cause, or to bring things into existence.
Also, for “It” to bring things into existence, it had to will it. For that will to take place it had to decide, etc…All leading to the idea that the uncaused-cause also has consciousness.
the problem though is that the definition you yourself gave of an uncaused-cause looks incoherent. how can something be uncaused (and thus out of the causal chain), but yet caused (and thus inside the causal chain)?
[/quote]
Well, breaking it apart. Something that is uncaused, is not the resultant effect of anything. Hence it sits out side the causal chain because if it is affect by a cause, it will then be an effect and it will no longer be uncaused, nor will it be what it was.
Now if that uncaused thing can cause. It must posses that causal property. It has to have a causal property and yet be unaltered by the resultant effect. If it cannot do both, it cannot be an uncaused-cause.
I didn’t say in it isn’t a contradiction; I just argued it must be both uncaused and yet be able to cause as stated in the above paragraph. It is paradoxal to be sure. I would argue that most things are. For instance, I can draw a line with a pencil on a piece of paper. The line is finite in length and width, yet it has an infinite amount of properties. A finite line has an infinite amount of points. It has an infinite amount of segments. Yet it is verifiably a line with a finite length and width yet have an infinite amount of points segments and other properties. So we have an instance with something that has both finite and infinite properties yet exists, and can be measured and used reliably, yet has contradictory properties. So the fact that it has contradictory properties does not mean it is not the case.
Deductively? No I cannot state that deductively the Uncaused-cause possesses consciousness. I’d argue that inductively it can posses consciousness and that if other factors about it must be true, it is possible and even likely to be true. But I cannot prove it deductively…Maybe I can churn out some deduction sitting on the back deck with some whiskey and a cigar. But at this time, I do not have it that rock solid…I don’t know if it is even possible to be that certain.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Organised religion and true belief in God are incompatible. Religion demands that you accept the existence of God sans proof. [/quote]
I’m sorry HH, but this is simply not correct in all cases. In some, yes (think ancient elemental religions such as shinto, etc). However, some religions attempt to support their claims with philosophical reason, or “proofs” as you will (even though that is an inaccurate term), and some attempt to support their claims based on personal witness. The Judeo-Christian outlook is an example of a religion that uses both. All you need do is look at the New Testament. Also there are many philosophers that attempt to show philosophical reasons (Augustine, Aquinas, earlier ones and later ones as well).
The key question rather is what kinds of support or evidence does one accept as valid. Or even, what kind if any support required to be a rational belief, let alone a true belief.
There is no “valid proof” that any single religion is a “true belief” in a strictly human unimpeachable sense, because everything is subject to a person’s idiosyncrasies and biases. Besides, pure deduction cannot work very well in this debate unless both sides are willing to accept the same premises (say for instance the truth of personal witness and accuracy of textual translation and transmission), and that is usually not the case. Heck, if you want to get down to it, there’s debate as to whether you can even PROVE there are other people in the universe using only deductive reasoning.
However, there are reasons that belief in God could be a rational belief. I really don’t care to get too deep into this debate, just my 2 cents.
As an aside, I think it is severely limiting to only be willing to accept strictly valid deductive reasoning on this question for innumerable reasons. Inductive philosophical reasoning should be accepted IMO. The question rather is what kind and what should be required.
[quote]pat wrote:
In the case of determinism. Nothing is random as it’s course would be predetermined. The cause then, of the resultant effect would not be the preceding event, but that which is the determining factor.[/quote]
I disagree. If you take a deck of cards that are in a random order and shuffle them (by any algorithm), they are still in a random order.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
In the case of determinism. Nothing is random as it’s course would be predetermined. The cause then, of the resultant effect would not be the preceding event, but that which is the determining factor.
I disagree. If you take a deck of cards that are in a random order and shuffle them (by any algorithm), they are still in a random order.[/quote]
They are in a different order than they were previously. Besides the act of shuffling caused them to be in the order they are in. I don’t see the randomness. Shuffle them again they will be in a different order again, but they are in the exact order they are supposed to be in.
I believe that organized religion is bad because it does not encourage critical individual thinking. One simply can not argue against the fact that organized religion has some kind of set rules for what one is to do, and what one is not to do. Society as a whole also has rules of course, but these are subject to change, and there’s no threat of hell for those who choose not to follow all of them.
One can ponder the validity of these rules in organized religion. If one finds them to be incompatible with the life one wants to lead, one has no choice but to either forsake oneself or forsake the religion in question.
Most people do not seem to ponder these questions, particularly in a country where 45% of the population thinks that the world is 10 000 years old.
I know that you’ll find many different kinds of religious people, but I’m haunted by images of christians who decorate their house with american flags and pictures of Jesus and G.W. Bush.
Like C. Hitchens said: It’s hard to name a good deed that can only be done by religious people, but it’s very easy to name horrific deeds that can only be motivated by religion.
Edit:
I’m not excluding the possibility of of some sort of “God”, but I do not follow an organized religion and I am not a theist. If one is to consider oneself as “spiritual”, one must first acknowledge that we’re all different (unless one believes that every soul is the same). Organized religion usually prescribes the same rules for everyone, making it the most non-spiritual thing imaginable.
[quote]whoami wrote:
I believe that organized religion is bad because it does not encourage critical individual thinking. One simply can not argue against the fact that organized religion has some kind of set rules for what one is to do, and what one is not to do. Society as a whole also has rules of course, but these are subject to change, and there’s no threat of hell for those who choose not to follow all of them.
One can ponder the validity of these rules in organized religion. If one finds them to be incompatible with the life one wants to lead, one has no choice but to either forsake oneself or forsake the religion in question.
Most people do not seem to ponder these questions, particularly in a country where 45% of the population thinks that the world is 10 000 years old.
I know that you’ll find many different kinds of religious people, but I’m haunted by images of christians who decorate their house with american flags and pictures of Jesus and G.W. Bush.
Like C. Hitchens said: It’s hard to name a good deed that can only be done by religious people, but it’s very easy to name horrific deeds that can only be motivated by religion.
Edit:
I’m not excluding the possibility of of some sort of “God”, but I do not follow an organized religion and I am not a theist. If one is to consider oneself as “spiritual”, one must first acknowledge that we’re all different (unless one believes that every soul is the same). Organized religion usually prescribes the same rules for everyone, making it the most non-spiritual thing imaginable.[/quote]
You’d have to substantiate the claim that all organized religions stifles individual thinking…Or at the very least does not encourage it. You are on a slippery slope. Granted you are stating your opinion, which you are entitled to have, but how have you determined that all organized religion is against individual thinking? You in a position to show that all organized religions stifle individualism…Good luck with that, you’ve chosen a difficult road.
I do not have extensive knowledge of all organized religions, so I can’t be 100% sure that they all impose rules on their followers. However, that sounds more like something like Lao Tsus’ ‘Tao Te Ching’, and not any organized religion that I’m aware of.
If there is no religion that does not require its followers to follow certain rules, then I do not see how I’m on a slippery slope.
Christianity certainly does not qualify as an exception. I seem to remember quite a few ‘thou shall’ and thou shall not’s’.
It seems obvious to me that this in no way promotes individual thinking. Like Ted Haggard said: We do not have to decide for ourselves if homosexuality is wrong or not, because we find the answer in the bible.
Now this guy has a pretty big following, and I find that so fucking scary I can’t even begin to articulate it.
Edit:
I really do not believe that I have to look at every religion separately and in great detail show how they all kill individual thinking. That could take a while, and I don’t want to spend my entire day off posting on the internet. This is not a debating competition and I’m sure everyone can think of at least one single case when their religion of choice requires them to think in a certain way or do a certain thing.
sorry for taking so long to get back to you, i’ve been away on vacation.
[quote]pat wrote:
I didn’t say in it isn’t a contradiction; I just argued it must be both uncaused and yet be able to cause as stated in the above paragraph. It is paradoxal to be sure. I would argue that most things are. For instance, I can draw a line with a pencil on a piece of paper. The line is finite in length and width, yet it has an infinite amount of properties. A finite line has an infinite amount of points. It has an infinite amount of segments. Yet it is verifiably a line with a finite length and width yet have an infinite amount of points segments and other properties. So we have an instance with something that has both finite and infinite properties yet exists, and can be measured and used reliably, yet has contradictory properties. So the fact that it has contradictory properties does not mean it is not the case.
[/quote]
i do not think your example of the line is an example of a paradoxical or contradictory thing. there is nothing paradoxical or contradictory about a finite object of which an infinite amount of properties can be predicated. (in fact, this is the case for ALL objects). for one thing, this is not contradictory because the finiteness of the object refers to its physical dimensions, while the properties that are predicated of the object (of which there are infinite many, actually, uncountably infinitely many, to be accurate) are incorporeal, or non-physical. in a rough, informal sense, i could say that there is a categorical difference between the referents of the “finiteness” of the objects physical dimensions and the “infinitude” of the objects predicates.
now, you specifically mentioned a line, and noted that the line is of finite length, yet contains an infinite amount of points (which, one assumes, have physical dimensions). thus, your example isn’t easily brushed aside by the above explanation.
your example though still isn’t an example of an object with contradictory properties. there are two ways to handle the line example. (which, curiously enough, is in essence the same problem as Zeno’s paradox). The first way is simply the calculus response. That is, it is in fact possible for the sum of an infinite amount of infinitesimal objects to be finite. to see this, one only needs to understand riemann sums, and to prove it, one only needs to integrate. if you don’t like the pure mathematical explanation, the key is the fact that the infinite amount of points being summed are infinitesimal. intuitively, infinitesimal magnitudes are those which are smaller then any real number yet still larger then 0. (though theory around infinitesimals is hazy, and i’m not familiar with the modern formal stuff… anyway, modern calculus just uses the formal definition of a limit instead, but this is getting to far off topic)
anyway… the second way to handle the line problem is a bit more empirical. the response basically goes that the line is in fact NOT made up of an infinite number of points. that is, space is discrete, NOT continuous. the idea that the line is made up of an infinite amount of points is merely a nice mathematical fiction that is useful in certain theories, and is not reflective of reality. (though this response is questionable, not everything thinks space is ultimately discrete).
lastly, there is a third response to the line problem that comes out of modern set theory. often, people who give zeno’s paradox (your line problem) are not satisfied with the calculus answer. they say that oh, i understand what your saying, but, that still doesn’t really answer the question. so in response, a “better” answer is simply that the expounders of zeno’s paradox do not understand the nature of infinity. that is, there are different types (or orders) of infinity. these types (of which there are an infinite amount) can be broken down into two categories: countable infinites and uncountable infinites. each of the two types have different properties, (uncountable ones being larger). anyway… in the line problem (zeno’s paradox), the “infinity” of the points that make up the line is an uncountable infinity (technically, it has the cardinality of aleph naught, or that of the continuum). thus, being an uncountable infinity, the “sum” of the points is “uncountable” (to say it nontechnically). to put it simply, when one lays out this line problem, they are asserting that each of the points of the line must be physically counted or summed (thus encuring a contradiction, as the totality of the line is finite). the problem is though the totally of the points cannot be counted, and thus the claim that they must be counted cannot be made.
anyway… giving the set theory answer to zeno’s problem is not easy, as there is no intuitive characterization of transfinite arithmetic with which to give it in. it really just relies on cantor’s formal theory of transfinite cardinals.
but anyway… to make a long story short, asserting self contradictory claims is generally considered a big problem. you will be hard pressed to find anyone in the sciences, math, or philosophy who will agree that a contradictory claim is true (that is not to say that people, in practice, don’t work around contradictions at times, but this is a fair cry from establishing an argument based on one). this is all for the simple reason that contradiction in an argument leads to the conclusion that all statements of true (by application of Reductio ad absurdum).
ah, i see. i understand.
I had wonderful responses earlier all down this post when my computer bluescreened…So my following responses will be far more brief…
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
sorry for taking so long to get back to you, i’ve been away on vacation.
pat wrote:
I didn’t say in it isn’t a contradiction; I just argued it must be both uncaused and yet be able to cause as stated in the above paragraph. It is paradoxal to be sure. I would argue that most things are. For instance, I can draw a line with a pencil on a piece of paper. The line is finite in length and width, yet it has an infinite amount of properties. A finite line has an infinite amount of points. It has an infinite amount of segments. Yet it is verifiably a line with a finite length and width yet have an infinite amount of points segments and other properties. So we have an instance with something that has both finite and infinite properties yet exists, and can be measured and used reliably, yet has contradictory properties. So the fact that it has contradictory properties does not mean it is not the case.
i do not think your example of the line is an example of a paradoxical or contradictory thing.
[/quote]
Nor do I think the notion of an uncaused-cause, so rather than paradoxical, we just call it ironic.
Thee line problem was really an analogy that a single thing can have seemingly contradictory properties yet exist with out contradiction. A line has an infinite amount of points between it’s “poles”, yet is finite in length and width. An uncauased-cause is not caused but can cause. I don’t see how one is more paradoxical than the other.
Dissecting the line problem really wasn’t part of the program, but in short a line is infinitely divisible with points in between each division. Mathematics does not solve either the line problem or Zeno’s paradox because though it appears to move things along, it really just inverts the problems. In the case of the line you have an equation the approaches but never touches zero. Likewise with Zeno, rather than not being able to start, he just in turn never finishes. Neither of the equations shows the finiteness of a line a gap is still a gap until the line equation can hit zero, or in the case of Zeno, the equation can actually equal one, the problems remain unsolved. However, I intentionally left Zeno out of it as I was not concerned with motion.
I don’t think the prime-mover theory falls into either contradiction or logical fallacy. I just didn’t see that in your arguments. I would say that I was wrong to use the term, because it really wasn’t and isn’t accurate.
pat,
thanks for the response, i really do enjoy these things.
anyway, i’ll be brief as well. Like i mentioned in my post, i agree with you that the calculus response does not answer the line paradox (or Zeno), it only provides what might be called a more accurate description. (that is, the length of the line is not the sum of the length’s of points, but rather an integral. as you mention, this merely “inverts” the problem by simply changing the definition). that is why i mentioned the set theory stuff, which does “answer” the paradox. (it is just hard to get into, as there are no non-formal ways to talk about it)
lastly, i’m not saying that the prime-mover theory falls into contradiction (there is certainly a huge amount of merit to the idea and its arguments). I was only trying to point out the apparent contradiction in your analysis. that is not to say that your analysis cannot escape the apparent problem, or that no other better analysis is available.
anyway, i’ve enjoyed this thread… both the beginning and the end.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
pat,
thanks for the response, i really do enjoy these things.
anyway, i’ll be brief as well. Like i mentioned in my post, i agree with you that the calculus response does not answer the line paradox (or Zeno), it only provides what might be called a more accurate description. (that is, the length of the line is not the sum of the length’s of points, but rather an integral. as you mention, this merely “inverts” the problem by simply changing the definition). that is why i mentioned the set theory stuff, which does “answer” the paradox. (it is just hard to get into, as there are no non-formal ways to talk about it)
lastly, i’m not saying that the prime-mover theory falls into contradiction (there is certainly a huge amount of merit to the idea and its arguments). I was only trying to point out the apparent contradiction in your analysis. that is not to say that your analysis cannot escape the apparent problem, or that no other better analysis is available.
anyway, i’ve enjoyed this thread… both the beginning and the end. [/quote]
Do you have any links that may point to answer of Zeno’s paradox? I’d love to see it, I never have found an adequate solution the problem…
I have enjoyed it too…I always said if I get rich, I’ll go back a get my PhD in philosophy…I love that shit.
[quote]pat wrote:
They are in a different order than they were previously. Besides the act of shuffling caused them to be in the order they are in. I don’t see the randomness. Shuffle them again they will be in a different order again, but they are in the exact order they are supposed to be in.[/quote]
I could’ve been playing drinking games with them. That would put them in a random order. Shuffling them after that would put them in a different, but still random, order.
[quote]whoami wrote:
If there is no religion that does not require its followers to follow certain rules, then I do not see how I’m on a slippery slope.
[/quote]
This is a slight problem. Not only religion, but EVERY CIVILIZATION and EVERY GOV’T commands its followers to follow certain rules. You’ll have to define the question better than that.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
They are in a different order than they were previously. Besides the act of shuffling caused them to be in the order they are in. I don’t see the randomness. Shuffle them again they will be in a different order again, but they are in the exact order they are supposed to be in.
I could’ve been playing drinking games with them. That would put them in a random order. Shuffling them after that would put them in a different, but still random, order. [/quote]
They are in the exact order they are supposed to be…nothing is random.