Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Easy proof for Inteligent Design
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 196 of 213 (557434)
04-25-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by PaulK
04-25-2010 2:08 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
So, the number of usable spatial dimensions (not the "curled up" extras proposed by string theory) would be a fact, not an abstraction. Can you name one that is truly the product of abstraction ? And explain HOW it is the product of abstraction, and the relevance of it to your argument ?
Dimensions are actually totally abstract! Because in mathematics we create 1d and 2d things then we call 3d as 3d. But is there any really 1d or 2d shape?! No! Everything is 3d and you can't show it in reality. I accept the root of it is in the reality but as to my theory everything is like that. But the 3Dness is not real the way you described it.
I told you everything that we deal with is abstract. There is no single concrete thing that we know about it. Because we observe things and our mind have some understanding of it. That understanding is unchanging but has a relation to reality that is changing. Example of it would an apple as I said. Computer software as I said and everything else. Because these are product of mind, that's why they don't change.
Things that picked up by mind are like that error detection and correction in technology. For example if we send a signal with encoded bits in a wire, that signal gets to the other end in a totally different shape. So its physical reality changes. But the software and logical circuits are designed to extract the information from that noisy signal. So it appears to us that what you sent on one side is exactly what you get on the other side. But in fact physical reality of it is totally different.
It doesn't. The statement is entirely within the system, can only be fully understood with reference to the system and WITH that understanding is necessarily true.
Then again you are saying that the whole concept of necessary truth are hypothetical.
I don't believe that I did say that. However you are not using the abstraction to do these things, you are using a concrete instance of the program. And THAT is what does things.
There is no concrete instance. It is just code that executes. The code is abstract. Then it is translated to bits and then goes to logical circuits with switches and then these switches turn the power on or off on an actual device. So everything is abstract. The physical reality of it is meaning less.
While mind may be like software, without the ability to copy it - which we don't have - and create other concrete instances of a particular mind - which we don't have - it is pretty pointless t regard a mind as an abstraction. Each mind exists only as a single concrete instance.
It is not pointless. The fact that we can't copy it now doesn't mean we can never do it. Software is a software and consists of codes and instructions and information. So the nature of it is not material at all. It doesn't matter how you run it or where you run it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 2:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 3:44 PM MrQ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 197 of 213 (557435)
04-25-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by MrQ
04-25-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
Dimensions are actually totally abstract! Because in mathematics we create 1d and 2d things then we call 3d as 3d. But is there any really 1d or 2d shape?! No! Everything is 3d and you can't show it in reality. I accept the root of it is in the reality but as to my theory everything is like that. But the 3Dness is not real the way you described it.
We can't create truly 1 dimension or 2 dimensional objects because this universe IS 3-dimensional. That constant is a fact, not merely an abstraction.
quote:
I told you everything that we deal with is abstract
And you are wrong. We do not directly deal with abstractions at all - we cannot. We can only deal with concrete instances of the,
quote:
Then again you are saying that the whole concept of necessary truth are hypothetical.
I'm not saying that at all. What you mean is that real necessary truths aren't what you want for your argument.
quote:
There is no concrete instance
If you can use a computer program without running it on a computer or even having it installed then please explain how. Because I think that you are talking total nonsense.
The copies of the program on disk and in memory are concrete instances. They are what you use., not some Platonic ideal of Firefox or IE.
quote:
It is not pointless. The fact that we can't copy it now doesn't mean we can never do it. Software is a software and consists of codes and instructions and information. So the nature of it is not material at all. It doesn't matter how you run it or where you run it.
If we could then it might a difference - but you haven't even showed that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 3:29 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by MrQ, posted 04-26-2010 4:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 198 of 213 (557458)
04-25-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by MrQ
04-25-2010 4:59 AM


Re: Work is left to be done
Now if we accept this, you can in theory extract mind software and run it on a silicon chip some day! Nobody said that brain is the only way you can run it. So we are living in information world and matter is just a game here. People tend to see concrete reality as the real thing but in fact what has value and important is the abstract parts of it.
But you still have a physical medium. You need to demonstrate that an abstract concept can exist without a physical medium to conceive of it.
I believe that reason for the fact that the world around us is so astonishingly, explained by mathematics is not just a coincidence.
I agree. We created mathematics because of its utility for explaining the world around us.
I think the reference mind(my invention for the word God) is the software for universe and it actually interacts with it.
I've noticed. But you said this was an easy proof. The only proof you've put forward has much work to be done, as I previously began to explain.
I think mind is a software for the brain and that's why nobody can locate it in the brain!
Neuroscientists have been saying for some time that the mind is what the brain does.
Poeple here have the positivist philosophical view toward the world and that's why this is very hard for them to sallow. They want to ultimately connect everything to matter and energy.
That's physicalism not positivism. Positivism merely says that in order to decide whether your premises are true, it requires some positive verification. Are you suggesting we should just take your word for it? Or should we try to verify your claims? What is the sensible course of action if we are unable to verify your claims?
I think necessary truths should have a concrete representation in real world...They are the roots and part of laws of physics. Therefore, they must exist before human's coming.
I basically agree with this.
Now this concrete base can't be created by matter or energy alone.
You are making a positive assertion. Can you verify that this is true?
This is our mind that tells us 1+1=2. We don't need to even teach or train it. It works like that. Therefore, there must be an earlier mind which I call it as reference mind which injected this logic and necessary truths in our world.
Because we use our minds to deduce things about the world, therefore there must have been an earlier mind that injected truths into the world? I don't think that's a logical conclusion to make given the premises you gave. How did you get there?
Why mathematics does explain the world so good?
Because its creators wanted to develop a system that could be used to explain the world well.
Why all human beings agree on necessary truths and logic but differ on everything else?
They don't. Some people may deny necessary truths and logic. We call them mad, or solipsists or other things. But those that do agree on it, do so because if they are not used, communication is impossible and so futile and those people want to communicate so they develop communal, often unspoken, assumptions (such as, 'we can rely on what our senses tell us - more or less').
How necessary truths get recognized and respected by matter?
Life evolved material beings that could recognize and respect necessary truths (those that were inclined to act as if they were falsehoods, presumably walked out of a tree into a bears mouth or something).
My theory at least can successfully explain above questions.
Any old theory can explain the above questions. The question is, which ones are consistent with the way the world actually appears to be, make as few unfounded assumptions as possible, and possibly have a means of verification that can be personally experienced.
But so far, i didn't hear anything from anybody except that they say it happens to be like that! How? We don't know!
You assume that a) the question 'How' even makes sense in the context you are using it and b) not knowing the answer merits filling the void with Logos Dragons.
It was nonsense when the cartographers did it, it is nonsense now. Until you can allow us to utilize our senses to verify your claims then your argument is literally without sense.
Sometimes, if you don't know - the best answer is 'I don't know.' rather than 'What if it was a green being of pure wisdom that thought the word love which shaped the universe which he envelops and protects from the sea of evil chaos that dominates the cosmos? Wouldn't that explain it all?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 4:59 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by MrQ, posted 04-26-2010 4:15 AM Modulous has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 199 of 213 (557471)
04-26-2010 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Modulous
04-25-2010 9:01 PM


Re: Work is left to be done
But you still have a physical medium. You need to demonstrate that an abstract concept can exist without a physical medium to conceive of it.
I don't disagree with this in principle. May be the reference mind is build on top of early matter or may be matter has got an intrinsic basic mind attached to it and it is one properties of it. I suggest you read the last few posts of discussion between me and PaulK. I suggested that in real world only abstract things are static and matter and energy are constant changing world. The relationships between forces in physics are static and from a type that govern the whole universe. You can't have them unless the particles of matter relate to each other some how. The type of relationship is logical so it shows that is one sign of a mind.
I've noticed. But you said this was an easy proof.
Well, I guess this is the nature of philosophy that it doesn't have anything easy in it. I mean I can make anything complex. For example, I can ask you prove to me that you exist!
That's physicalism not positivism. Positivism merely says that in order to decide whether your premises are true, it requires some positive verification. Are you suggesting we should just take your word for it? Or should we try to verify your claims? What is the sensible course of action if we are unable to verify your claims?
That's the problem. Many things in the world are not empirically verifiable. Some stuff we just use our deduction reasoning for their proof but can never verify them or their verification is very hard. Materialism always include logical positivism.
You are making a positive assertion. Can you verify that this is true?
I mentioned in my last few replies to PaulK that nature of matter is change. Whilst these rules and models are unchanging. You can't make unchanging thing on the based on change unless there is a mind. This is the only process that we know in the world that has this capability.
Because we use our minds to deduce things about the world, therefore there must have been an earlier mind that injected truths into the world? I don't think that's a logical conclusion to make given the premises you gave. How did you get there?
Because of abstraction levels and requirements. Logical truths are constant and there should be some sort of abstraction layer on top of changing matter and energy to create and maintain them.
Because its creators wanted to develop a system that could be used to explain the world well.
Then why would us have such capability to be able to create it? What I am saying is that this ability is not coincidence.
They don't. Some people may deny necessary truths and logic. We call them mad, or solipsists or other things. But those that do agree on it, do so because if they are not used, communication is impossible and so futile and those people want to communicate so they develop communal, often unspoken, assumptions (such as, 'we can rely on what our senses tell us - more or less').
Well, I am talking about normal people. Of course those with genetically illness are excluded.
Life evolved material beings that could recognize and respect necessary truths (those that were inclined to act as if they were falsehoods, presumably walked out of a tree into a bears mouth or something).
Exactly! So necessary truths are intrinsic part of nature and with evolution process, it has been passed down to us.
Sometimes, if you don't know - the best answer is 'I don't know.' rather than 'What if it was a green being of pure wisdom that thought the word love which shaped the universe which he envelops and protects from the sea of evil chaos that dominates the cosmos? Wouldn't that explain it all?'
Well first of all logical positivist like Dawkins, they don't say they don't know. They say they know!
No! Because love here is unprovable. So that's why it is hypothetical unless there is a way to prove it and define it. But necessary truth and logic is something that existed since beginning in the form of constants in physics. So to me that's a big coincidence and can't be explained by the matter alone. As I said there is only one process that can do that in the world and that is abstraction of mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2010 9:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Modulous, posted 04-26-2010 10:27 AM MrQ has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 200 of 213 (557472)
04-26-2010 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by PaulK
04-25-2010 3:44 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
We can't create truly 1 dimension or 2 dimensional objects because this universe IS 3-dimensional. That constant is a fact, not merely an abstraction.
Ok tell me how many dimensions do we have in a black hole?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 3:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2010 4:21 AM MrQ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 201 of 213 (557473)
04-26-2010 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by MrQ
04-26-2010 4:17 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
Ok tell me how many dimensions do we have in a black hole?
The question is unanswerable. We don't know what is "in" a Black Hole.
Now are you going to answer me how you can use a computer program without a concrete instance of it? Most of us need the program to be installed and running. How do you manage to do without either of those ? Or even a copy on a CD ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by MrQ, posted 04-26-2010 4:17 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by MrQ, posted 04-26-2010 4:50 AM PaulK has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 202 of 213 (557474)
04-26-2010 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by PaulK
04-26-2010 4:21 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
Now are you going to answer me how you can use a computer program without a concrete instance of it? Most of us need the program to be installed and running. How do you manage to do without either of those ? Or even a copy on a CD ?
We can't. But computer is not important for us. We can run it now on silicon and later may be we use quantum or even proteins. As soon as you have something that runs your code your will be happy. So the main thing is software not the hardware as the hardware part can change easily. You can run MS Word on Mac or PC. It doesn't matter to you as long as you have MS Word.
The question is unanswerable. We don't know what is "in" a Black Hole.
I thought you said that dimensions are 3 and non-changing!
Edited by MrQ, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2010 4:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2010 4:58 AM MrQ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 203 of 213 (557476)
04-26-2010 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by MrQ
04-26-2010 4:50 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
We can't.
Exactly. You were talking complete nonsense when you said that you didn't need a concrete instance of the program.
quote:
But computer is not important for us. We can run it now on silicon and later may be we use quantum or even proteins. As soon as you have something that runs your code your will be happy. So the main thing is software not the hardware as the hardware part can change easily. You can run MS Word on Mac or PC. It doesn't matter to you as long as you have MS Word.
But - and this is the important part - you ALWAYS need a concrete instance of the program. And you always will, no matter what changes are made to the hardware (and I'll point out that the Mac and Windows versions of Word are different programs, so even there things are not so simple as you think). You may believe that Word is a real abstract entity but you can't do anything with that. Whether Word somehow exists without a physical instance or representation is an unanswerable philosophical question, but it is certain that you can't DO anything with it without a physical instance or representation.
quote:
I thought you said that dimensions are 3 and non-changing!
In our universe. Whether the inside of a black hole is in our universe is - to the best of my knowledge - unknown.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by MrQ, posted 04-26-2010 4:50 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by MrQ, posted 04-27-2010 6:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 204 of 213 (557503)
04-26-2010 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by MrQ
04-26-2010 4:15 AM


Clear those muddy waters
I don't disagree with this in principle. May be the reference mind is build on top of early matter or may be matter has got an intrinsic basic mind attached to it and it is one properties of it
But now you are struggling to justify the existence of this reference mind. Why does it need to exist if 'early matter' is capable of 'building' a mind? That requires a logical framework that exists prior to the reference mind. If logical frameworks can exist in a reality with matter and no reference mind, and if those logical frameworks can create minds....then what makes you think we aren't the first minds about?
Why the need to postulate an earlier one? Surely we are the reference minds of our own abstract realities?
The type of relationship is logical so it shows that is one sign of a mind.
Since you've conceded that logic can in principle exist without a mind - this is not a conclusion that can be relied upon.
Well, I guess this is the nature of philosophy that it doesn't have anything easy in it. I mean I can make anything complex. For example, I can ask you prove to me that you exist!
Where 'you' refers to me, and where 'I' am the respondee to your demand for proof, I submit this post as evidence that there is a responding entity.
But it isn't the difficulty that bothers me. So far you haven't entered difficult philosophical waters yet. You just muddied them and think that makes it 'difficult' and 'complex'. It's perfectly clear: You have yet to establish that in order for things to occur in a fashion that we have described as 'logical' - there must exist a 'reference mind' to conceive of it. So far you have just equivocated between the concept of logic (which requires a mind) and the way things actually are in attempt to prove that the way things actually are requires a mind.
That's physicalism not positivism. Positivism merely says that in order to decide whether your premises are true, it requires some positive verification.
Many things in the world are not empirically verifiable
I didn't say empirically verifiable. That would be empiricism of some kind. I said positively verifiable. I understand the temptation to think of empiricism when someone says 'positively verifiable', but it makes it easier to communicate if you keep the terms straight.
Some stuff we just use our deduction reasoning for their proof but can never verify them or their verification is very hard.
I'd suggest that deductive (and even sometimes inductive) logic is a vital process in verification.
I mentioned in my last few replies to PaulK that nature of matter is change. Whilst these rules and models are unchanging. You can't make unchanging thing on the based on change unless there is a mind.
And I asked you to show how you have verified this is true, in the context of such things as logic?
A given bit of matter has some attributes that change but the way those attributes are remains constant. It's charge might change over time - but that one can describe its charge is constant. Likewise with its existence. You are suggesting that the fact that entities have attributes implies there is a mind? It just seems like a massive leap to me and I see no proof at all.
Unless you can think of some logical truth that cannot be observed as being true by studying the attributes of things?
And I'm not just talking about matter. I'm talking about more fundamental things. I'm talking about whatever existence is 'composed' of. That. Its base bottom there ain't anything more basic than this. That seems to lead to certain intrinsic properties in the known universe regarding 'entities', which are themselves abstractions on those more fundamental building blocks. We've only gone so far in exploring why these properties emerge, and some of the more fundamental properties such as 'existence' may never be answerable and may not have an answer who knows? The point is - you don't and you haven't successfully employed logic to explain the origins of logic simply because it is either impossible to do so or because we have yet accessed sufficient information to give an answer.
Because of abstraction levels and requirements. Logical truths are constant and there should be some sort of abstraction layer on top of changing matter and energy to create and maintain them.
Why should there be?
Then why would us have such capability to be able to create it? What I am saying is that this ability is not coincidence.
No it isn't. Nor is the ability for an eagle to fly on a planet with an atmosphere a coincidence. We have the capability to create mathematics because we have a large brain that is capable of modeling the world in great depth. We found methods that allowed for better understanding of the world and over a looooong time period we finally came to formalise mathematics which has continued to develop since.
Well, I am talking about normal people. Of course those with genetically illness are excluded.
I didn't say anything about genetic illnesses. I talked about the fact that people that disagree with necessary truths are usually either called mad or have an extreme philosophical position like solipsism.
By 'normal' people you are simply discarding parts of the data set that are in disagreement and then claiming the entire dataset agrees with you. You are telling me that your question actually was:
Why do all human beings that agree on necessary truths agree on necessary truths but differ on everything else?
And the answer is a rather banal: because you defined the dataset that way.
Exactly! So necessary truths are intrinsic part of nature and with evolution process, it has been passed down to us.
I haven't said differently. You are the one that is claiming they are separate and require 'injection' by a mind of some kind.
Well first of all logical positivist like Dawkins, they don't say they don't know. They say they know!
I don't think Dawkins is a logical positivist. I think he would be accurately described as a Scientific Realist, a position put forward as a reaction to logical positivism and its problems. They share similarities, but I think are sufficiently different. I'm not sure if he is one, but I have seen him applaud Analytic Philosophers on several occasions - including Dan Dennett and Bertrand Russell.
Anyway - it's trivial to prove you wrong about Dawkins attitude towards doubt:
quote:
Quinn: You can’t answer the question where matter comes from! You, as an atheist
Dawkins: I can’t, but science is working on it. You can’t answer it either.
Quinn: It won’t come up with an answer, and you invoked a mystery argument that you accuse religious believers of doing all the time. You invoke a very first and most fundamental question about reality. You do not know where matter came from.
Dawkins: I don’t know. Science is working on it. Science is a progressive thing that’s working on it. You don’t know but you claim that you do.
From THE RYAN TUBRIDY SHOW.
No! Because love here is unprovable. So that's why it is hypothetical unless there is a way to prove it and define it.
Excellent, now you need to take your Reference Mind with the power to inject logic into universes and apply that standard.
But necessary truth and logic is something that existed since beginning in the form of constants in physics.
I'm not asking you to demonstrate axioms for me. Just the things you are claiming that we don't agree on would be fine.
So to me that's a big coincidence and can't be explained by the matter alone.
Unless they are, as you said earlier, intrinsic to one another. Then it's no coincidence at all - no more than finding a man with testicles or a star that is too hot for skinny dipping. (the last used because of the amusing cultural synonyms - nobody is too hot to skinny dip, no matter how famous!).
As I said there is only one process that can do that in the world and that is abstraction of mind.
But you haven't shown that an abstraction of mind can actually do that in the world. So that's why it is hypothetical unless there is a way to prove it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by MrQ, posted 04-26-2010 4:15 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by MrQ, posted 04-27-2010 6:38 PM Modulous has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 205 of 213 (557735)
04-27-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Modulous
04-26-2010 10:27 AM


Re: Clear those muddy waters
But now you are struggling to justify the existence of this reference mind. Why does it need to exist if 'early matter' is capable of 'building' a mind? That requires a logical framework that exists prior to the reference mind. If logical frameworks can exist in a reality with matter and no reference mind, and if those logical frameworks can create minds....then what makes you think we aren't the first minds about?
Good question! Because you have to define loads of axioms and definitions to make it work. This along with early matter or energy would be the actual starting point. But as you can see this whole system becomes way too complex. It means that you have to assume a lot of things to exist before you can have any universe. I am just removing all this and put one mind instead. You might say the mind might be as complex as this system or even more complex. I claimed that mind actually is simple. But obviously we can't prove it until we can find out what does it consists of. But even without that, assuming that we could summarize all these axioms and assumptions and system in a mind would be better. It is more logical to put it this way.
This assumption however has got great consequences. As when we have mind we will have purpose. But if we assume just a logical system it would be no use for it. Then one would ask, why should be a logical system exist after all? why not chaos?
Since you've conceded that logic can in principle exist without a mind - this is not a conclusion that can be relied upon.
What I said was that, if you assume there is mind then logic and axioms automatically comes out of it. But if you have logic and axioms and no mind, still problem of abstraction exist. So in fact the mind will solve many problems at once.
You have yet to establish that in order for things to occur in a fashion that we have described as 'logical' - there must exist a 'reference mind' to conceive of it. So far you have just equivocated between the concept of logic (which requires a mind) and the way things actually are in attempt to prove that the way things actually are requires a mind.
Exactly! but we are considering evidence and relationships to see whether things can be the way they are without mind? There are numerous questions with this regard:
1- Why does matter behave based on logic and necessary truths? Normally what you expect from matter is total chaos.
2- Why our mind has got the ability to understand and define these logic and necessary truths? If we had purpose-less random system, we would expect that our brains work based on a different system rather than logic. As the system is abstract, you can have virtually infinite number of systems that you can imagine to occur. Why should we have the exact one that fits the nature?
Considering above questions and the fact that our mind simply is not our brain would show some sort of special link between our mind and the original necessary truths and logic. Assuming this plus the inherent change that associated with matter makes it impossible to define these based on matter with no abstraction on top of it. It is like you claim that we send a signal in a wire and we get the exact signal on the other end! So no error detection or correction is needed! This is a nice hypothetical idea but reality doesn't work like this. In reality, change and fuzziness are the integral part of matter. But necessary truth should be static and clear. How do you reconcile this paradox?
If we assume there is no mind. We still have to set the neccessary truths and logic as part of original uncaused cause. So in fact to have a working system we would need following:
1- Necessary truths and logic
2- Matter or energy
3- Physical laws which are basically manifestation of necessary truths and logic on the matter and energy.
So our uncaused cause would be a system of three parts which each of them consist of other components. If you look at this system you will see in fact you are starting with a complex system which is not going to be logical to be considered as random.
If you agree with me that the mind would be the main uncaused cause, then all problems will be resolved. Even if you agree that mind is an integral part of matter would be Ok. Because the only uncaused cause that we would need in that case would be matter itself. But as soon as you say mind, then notion of purpose comes in. I don't know may be whole universe is a massive quantum parallel processor and we are just one tiny part of it.
A given bit of matter has some attributes that change but the way those attributes are remains constant. It's charge might change over time - but that one can describe its charge is constant.
Aha! You see! you said "Describe its change". If you think about it this is the same as abstraction that I talked about. I asked PaulK to give me an example of non-changing material thing that doesn't need abstraction but creates abstraction by itself. He said 3 dimensions. But in fact he later on accepted that we don't know how many dimensions do we have in a black hole! He said it goes outside our universe! But in fact I don't care about our universe. I am talking about whole creation. The fact is that space-time fabric is too venerable and sensitive to matter and it constantly change and with it everything changes.
Likewise with its existence. You are suggesting that the fact that entities have attributes implies there is a mind? It just seems like a massive leap to me and I see no proof at all.
Attribute can't be in anyway created by matter. Show me a single example and I will drop my case. Attributes are products of mind and through a process which is called abstraction. You simply can't get it at material level.
Unless you can think of some logical truth that cannot be observed as being true by studying the attributes of things?
As I said when you said attribute again mind automatically comes in. You need to change your question and create one with no attribute, relation or these kind of abstraction process in them.
Why should there be?
To create static non changing parts of the universe.
We found methods that allowed for better understanding of the world and over a looooong time period we finally came to formalise mathematics which has continued to develop since.
Having the ability is also the problem. You might want to do many things but you won't able to. The fact that we wanted and are able to do it is not coincidence. You can try very hard to fit something on something else but ultimately fail. But we didn't.
By 'normal' people you are simply discarding parts of the data set that are in disagreement and then claiming the entire dataset agrees with you. You are telling me that your question actually was:
Why do all human beings that agree on necessary truths agree on necessary truths but differ on everything else?
Show me one person who says 1+1<>2. But if somebody wants to twist it then you can twist anything. As I said we can start talking about your existence!
Excellent, now you need to take your Reference Mind with the power to inject logic into universes and apply that standard.
Logic is different than love. You would need logic to have physical laws and you would need physical laws to have universe. But love doesn't come into this equation. May be at other levels but not this level that we are talking about. As I said abstraction has several layers. We are talking above just immediate level after material level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Modulous, posted 04-26-2010 10:27 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2010 9:33 AM MrQ has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 206 of 213 (557738)
04-27-2010 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
04-26-2010 4:58 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
But - and this is the important part - you ALWAYS need a concrete instance of the program. And you always will, no matter what changes are made to the hardware (and I'll point out that the Mac and Windows versions of Word are different programs, so even there things are not so simple as you think). You may believe that Word is a real abstract entity but you can't do anything with that. Whether Word somehow exists without a physical instance or representation is an unanswerable philosophical question, but it is certain that you can't DO anything with it without a physical instance or representation.
Yes but that's immaterial to us. What we need is a working MS Word, we don't care what is under the hood. The fact that you would need something to store and process your information is different than information itself. Information in its essence exists and its existence doesn't depend on matter. But since we don't have anything else except matter to store this data in it, we are using it. Bizarrely what matter provides you is only change. If you have change then you can code information in it. If you don't have change then level of information would be 0! So for information to exist we need change and that's it. Our source of change is matter.
In our universe. Whether the inside of a black hole is in our universe is - to the best of my knowledge - unknown.
Therefore 3dimentions are not that static as you described. If they were, you could easily and positively say even in blackholes we have 3D. But you can't!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2010 4:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2010 1:48 AM MrQ has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 207 of 213 (557795)
04-28-2010 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by MrQ
04-27-2010 6:55 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
Yes but that's immaterial to us.
I would say that the fact that you made a completely nonsensical claim - a claim that nobody who understood the difference between abstract and concrete objects could say - is very relevant.
quote:
What we need is a working MS Word, we don't care what is under the hood. The fact that you would need something to store and process your information is different than information itself. Information in its essence exists and its existence doesn't depend on matter
That depends on what it means for information to "exist". Moreover, it is quite clear that to make any use of this information you must have it present in a concrete form. Any presumed abstract existence is of philosphical interest only.
quote:
Therefore 3dimentions are not that static as you described. If they were, you could easily and positively say even in blackholes we have 3D. But you can't!
Of course that isn't true. For a start, if the inside of a black hole is another universe then obviously we can't assume that it is exactly like our universe. It is also true that this is a distraction from the fact that you don't have a real argument. Don't think that I didn't notice you going back to the self-contradictory assertion that necessary truths aren't necessarily true. If you had a real argument we wouldn't be going all over the place like this just so you can avoid answering basic questions about your argument (answers you should have known BEFORE posting the OP).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by MrQ, posted 04-27-2010 6:55 PM MrQ has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 208 of 213 (557851)
04-28-2010 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by MrQ
04-27-2010 6:38 PM


Re: Clear those muddy waters
Because you have to define loads of axioms and definitions to make it work. This along with early matter or energy would be the actual starting point. But as you can see this whole system becomes way too complex. It means that you have to assume a lot of things to exist before you can have any universe. I am just removing all this and put one mind instead.
But you aren't removing all of that. Can the mind both exist and not exist? I suggest it can't. And that suggests that the moment you have invoked it as a 'logical' solution to the origin of logic, you've simply pushed the problem back by assuming logic exists in order to explain how logic came about.
You HAVE to, otherwise your argument wouldn't be logical. And if you're argument isn't logical, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. Since you rely on logic - to describe reality without logic...your argument proves nothing.
You are trying to tell us to imagine a world where there are no necessary truths, but a mind exists. But if, in this world, there are no necessary truths, then there exists NO NECESSARY TRUTHS ANYWHERE. Necessary truths, are truths that are necessarily so - regardless. There can be no pre-necessary truth universe that has necessary truths injected into it. It is, by definition of necessary truths, impossible since those truths would necessarily be so in such a pre-necessary truth world which is a paradox.
You cannot explain the origin of necessary truths, without first assuming the necessary truths. That's why they are necessary.
This assumption however has got great consequences. As when we have mind we will have purpose.
Really? You haven't shown this to the case. You keep making these huge logical leaps.
But if we assume just a logical system it would be no use for it. Then one would ask, why should be a logical system exist after all? why not chaos?
Right - and I'm arguing that not only do we not know, but it might be impossible to obtain the knowledge of why things are ultimately the way they are. You have no means of accessing this information so calling this a 'proof' is fallacious.
But if you have logic and axioms and no mind, still problem of abstraction exist.
There is no problem. If there is no mind, there is no abstraction. It's quite simple.
What I said was that, if you assume there is mind then logic and axioms automatically comes out of it.
And if you assume the universe exists, logic and axioms automatically come from that.
Why does matter behave based on logic and necessary truths? Normally what you expect from matter is total chaos.
Matter behaves in a way which we have called logical. By definition it cannot do anything other than be consistent with things that are true.
However - we would not normally expect matter to be total chaos in a world without logic. Without logic there would be no existence, no matter, no minds, nothing.
Why our mind has got the ability to understand and define these logic and necessary truths?
I answered this in my last post. Evolution. Go look back at it.
Considering above questions and the fact that our mind simply is not our brain would show some sort of special link between our mind and the original necessary truths and logic.
Yes - the special link is that the mind is capable of understanding (and misunderstanding) things which are true.
Assuming this plus the inherent change that associated with matter makes it impossible to define these based on matter with no abstraction on top of it.
I already said that some things regarding matter are not unchangeable. Please address the nature of attributes such as existence.
This is a nice hypothetical idea but reality doesn't work like this. In reality, change and fuzziness are the integral part of matter. But necessary truth should be static and clear. How do you reconcile this paradox?
Because on the one hand you are measuring physical properties. On the other hand, you are describing ontological properties. Physical properties require measuring instruments that themselves are physical which require being made precise through measurements using other physical devices. That 6 things are not the same as 7 things or the idea that a thing can not both exist and not exist does not require these things.
Though there is plenty of fuzziness when you really do get down to it. Ask Bertrand Russell, who spent a thousand pages proving various simple mathematical concepts such as 1+1=2 from root logic.
1- Necessary truths and logic
2- Matter or energy
3- Physical laws which are basically manifestation of necessary truths and logic on the matter and energy.
So our uncaused cause would be a system of three parts which each of them consist of other components.
And yet you have not yet demonstrated that they are seperable. Having already insisted that they are intrinsic you are now saying it is a system of three parts which consist of further parts?
Can you rule out that all three of these things are simply the same? That energy is a necessary truth? That the way energy interacts is logical and could therefore be described using logic which would be called the laws of physics.
Since I know you can't - your argument remains dead.
If you look at this system you will see in fact you are starting with a complex system which is not going to be logical to be considered as random.
It seems pretty fundamental to me - there may be something more fundamental but you haven't quantified the complexity of the system and haven't demonstrated that a mind must be more fundamental that the fact that something can't both exist and not exist.
I doubt you will be able to.
If you agree with me that the mind would be the main uncaused cause, then all problems will be resolved.
And if you will agree with me that the above trifecta are different names for different elements of a single thing which could be regarded as an uncaused cause then all will be resolved. AND there is no need to multiply unnecessarily the number of entites required to explain something. AND it doesn't require the postulation of entities for which there is no evidence So it not only solves the same problems, but does not create any new ones!
Aha! You see! you said "Describe its change".
I fail to see why that warrants an "Aha", I didn't dispute this. I disputed that this supported your argument.
If you think about it this is the same as abstraction that I talked about.
Some things changing, other things not changing is nothing to do with abstraction and if you talked as if it were you are either wrong or you have some explaining to do.
I asked PaulK to give me an example of non-changing material thing that doesn't need abstraction but creates abstraction by itself.
Creates abstraction? The only thing capable of abstraction is the mind, and it does this by changing.
Attribute can't be in anyway created by matter. Show me a single example and I will drop my case. Attributes are products of mind and through a process which is called abstraction. You simply can't get it at material level.
I didn't say anything at all about creating attributes. So your counterargument is irrelevant to anything I said.
What I actually said was - you want to argue that because it is not possible to conceive or find any examples of a thing which both has an attribute and does not have that attribute at the same time that this means there must be a reference mind.
Now you are arguing that for attributes to exist there must be a mind? Why must there be a mind?
As I said when you said attribute again mind automatically comes in. You need to change your question and create one with no attribute, relation or these kind of abstraction process in them.
Mind does not automatically come in. A rabbit either exists or it does not exist. It does not do both. A mind is not required for this to be the case. I know your position is that it does, but you cannot assume that it does in order to support your position that it does. That is circular logic.
So can you show that there must be a mind before a rabbit can exist or not exist and never both at the same time?
Why should there be?
To create static non changing parts of the universe.
But you haven't demonstrated that things that change in some ways cannot be constant in others. You haven't demonstrated that constants cannot be created by variables that all change in such a way as to maintain the constant, which itself determines how the variables change.
You asserted it as if it were true, but failed to supply the proof.
Show me one person who says 1+1<>2. But if somebody wants to twist it then you can twist anything. As I said we can start talking about your existence!
I don't need to show you any persons. And if I did you'd just say people can twist anything so it seems pointless to try. I'm perfectly happy to discuss my existence, I have already provided evidence for you on demand regarding it. Providing evidence and logic on demand is something you might try.
I'm just saying that maybe you should have observed that most humans agree on the necessary truths, culture, time, geography, religion etc are only partially influential in this regard (I'm sure many would regard God as a necessary truth for instance).
Having the ability is also the problem. You might want to do many things but you won't able to. The fact that we wanted and are able to do it is not coincidence.
That's right. It isn't. But there are still many mathematical things which we have so far failed to accomplish, proofs left undiscovered - methods unexplored. We may never succeed in some mathematical endeavours, leaving us bewildered about some aspect of the universe forever.
So that isn't a coincidence either. The fact is, we have a certain mathematical skill - and using that skill over long periods of time, utilising a memory preservation technique called writing we can grow our mathematical knowledge. No human alive knows everything that all humans together throughout all time knows about mathematics. It is unthinkable that a person born into this world without any schooling of mathematics could develop a numbering system that is efficient enough to allow them enough time to develop calculus before they were dead. The idea that humans are optimised to pick up subtle mathematics should be seem for what it is. It took us hundreds of thousands of years to do it.
It is no more a coincidence that we 'coincidentally' tend to find other humans attractive. It is no coincidence that we have live births in a universe where there are advantages to be had in doing so.
We have plastic minds, capable learning novel things very quickly. One such thing is our ability to understand quantity. We have formalised this somewhat inherent trait and used our mental plasticity to sometimes specialise in understanding mathematics. Most people only utilize enough plasticity to remember the basics of arithmetic and the mathematical language and so on.
Why we, and all other life in fact, seems mysteriously and coincidentally well suited to conditions where they were found...was answered definitively in the 19th Century. Having a brain adapted to learning with evolved hard coded assistance has proven to be quite useful for human beings. Is there some reason you are trying to remystify it?
Excellent, now you need to take your Reference Mind with the power to inject logic into universes and apply that standard.
Logic is different than love. You would need logic to have physical laws and you would need physical laws to have universe. But love doesn't come into this equation. May be at other levels but not this level that we are talking about. As I said abstraction has several layers. We are talking above just immediate level after material level.
And for the second time I'm telling you that I am not asking you to demonstrate to me that logic exists! Have you noticed how your mind tends to do that? Perhaps there is a bias in there you hadn't detected? I asked you to apply the standard you mentioned to the Reference Mind you described, not to logic itself.
As you said: it is hypothetical unless there is a way to prove it.
You haven't proven the Reference Mind needs to exist, you have merely argued that you have a logically valid and consistent worldview that contains a Reference Mind. Not only is that claim disputed, but so is you claim that just because your worldview is self-consistent - that is not a sufficiently strong criterion of truth alone to justify its acceptance as true.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by MrQ, posted 04-27-2010 6:38 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by MrQ, posted 04-29-2010 2:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 209 of 213 (558050)
04-29-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Modulous
04-28-2010 9:33 AM


Re: Clear those muddy waters
And yet you have not yet demonstrated that they are seperable. Having already insisted that they are intrinsic you are now saying it is a system of three parts which consist of further parts?
Can you rule out that all three of these things are simply the same? That energy is a necessary truth? That the way energy interacts is logical and could therefore be described using logic which would be called the laws of physics.
Well, I don't have any problem you assume it like that. But what you are saying leads to the same result. If you think that these attributes are intrinsic properties of matter then you are assuming that mind is intrinsic part of matter. I really don't see why would matter should behave logical. It should have its own built in mind. May be it is some sort of primitive mind but it is mind. Because:
1- It has processing power and can do calculations like 1+1=2
2- It has memory like axioms, constants and physical laws and relationships
3- It evolves to handle more calculations and processing and memory
The only thing we haven't seen yet is consciousness. The reason for that is that we yet don't know what it is. That's why we can't comment on it as yet.
Thus may be your and my definition of mind are different. I mentioned previously that mind is a concept that has simple forms exactly like matter. So I can assume that above mentioned system is some sort of early mind which is build or co-exist with early type of matter.
I already said that some things regarding matter are not unchangeable. Please address the nature of attributes such as existence.
I am afraid existence is also changing and fuzzy. We have quantum vacuum and other quantum objects that come and go in an instant which you are not able to tell whether they exist or not.
I guess our overall discussion boils down to these two major questions and assertions:
1- What is the definition of mind?
2- Can matter produce anything non-changing without abstraction?
Wikipedia defines mind as following:
"Mind (pronounced /ˈmaɪnd/) is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combination of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason."
Well, it is obvious that they have defined it based on human mind. But what I claim is that mind can have simpler parts. As I said mind is like a software for brain and every software consist of simpler parts and components. But can we call these simpler components as mind? No. Because when you put them together they would be complex enough to handle all aspects of the mind required in the definition. But I think we can define a simple mind which consist of main functionalities only. For example if we have computers with consciousness then I would call them to have mind. May be they don't posses emotions or imaginations but having processing power, logic, memory and self-awareness is enough for me. In fact self-awareness is some sort of imagination as well. These are the parts that I mentioned are specific properties of mind which is abstraction. So if I want to define a litmus test for mind, I would say check if it can do abstraction process independently. Like we tried very hard to train computers to identify shapes and objects. But still they are very primitive and require our assistance. But if some day, they could be able to identify objects and relations on their own and name them then I would say they have mind. Therefore:
Abstraction is distinctive characteristic of mind which involves processing power, memory and thought to identify objects and relations and recognize them.
Now moving forward to second question. I already mentioned my position. Matter is changing and fuzzy and can't produce anything constant on its own. It needs abstraction. I am still waiting for a single constant that matter produces without abstraction process involving in it.
Edited by MrQ, : spell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2010 9:33 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Modulous, posted 04-29-2010 5:14 PM MrQ has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 210 of 213 (558068)
04-29-2010 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by MrQ
04-29-2010 2:59 PM


Re: Clear those muddy waters
Well, I don't have any problem you assume it like that. But what you are saying leads to the same result. If you think that these attributes are intrinsic properties of matter then you are assuming that mind is intrinsic part of matter.
I'm not assuming that mind is an intrinsic part of matter.
I really don't see why would matter should behave logical.
Because it is necessarily so.
It should have its own built in mind.
No it shouldn't.
May be it is some sort of primitive mind but it is mind. Because:
1- It has processing power and can do calculations like 1+1=2
2- It has memory like axioms, constants and physical laws and relationships
3- It evolves to handle more calculations and processing and memory
I have a calculator that can do that, and more. It has no mind.
The only thing we haven't seen yet is consciousness.
Consciousness isn't a noun and it therefore cannot be seen anymore than one can see walking.
Thus may be your and my definition of mind are different. I mentioned previously that mind is a concept that has simple forms exactly like matter. So I can assume that above mentioned system is some sort of early mind which is build or co-exist with early type of matter.
A simple mind doesn't intelligently design. Regardless of the kind of mind, I'm not just going to take you word that it is necessary.
I am afraid existence is also changing and fuzzy. We have quantum vacuum and other quantum objects that come and go in an instant which you are not able to tell whether they exist or not.
Whether or not quantum physics calls some previously held necessary truths into question doesn't seem to me to be on topic. If anything it would appear to work against your position if easily recognised and undisputed necessary truths (such as an entity cannot both have a property and not have a property at the same time, that is to say: A=!A is true in some circumstances), have been overturned by more detailed empirical research.
Can matter produce anything non-changing without abstraction?
My point is, that this is not a question of relevance. Matter does not create necessary truths. I am saying that there are fundamental building blocks of reality (say: Quantum Foam or some such). Those building blocks have certain properties. Those properties are necessary truths. Those necessary truths leads to a possible system that could describes them. That system is deductive logic using axioms. The Quantum Foam acting the way it does leads somehow to energy distributions which we call the universe that by inheritance operates in a logical fashion which we describe using physics and 'codifying' what happens using the laws of physics.
There is no toolkit available to explain the origins of the necessary truths. I say the question is unanswerable and perhaps nonsensical.
But I think we can define a simple mind which consist of main functionalities only.
There is of course a hypothetical 'bare bones' brain that has the minimum components required to create the conscious state of mindfullness.
. So if I want to define a litmus test for mind, I would say check if it can do abstraction process independently
Well not want to get into a debate on this right now, I'm happy to run with that.
Abstraction is distinctive characteristic of mind which involves processing power, memory and thought to identify objects and relations and recognize them.
Sounds good.
Now moving forward to second question. I already mentioned my position. Matter is changing and fuzzy and can't produce anything constant on its own.
A position you haven't bothered to support, but it doesn't matter because my rebuttal doesn't depend on whether matter is fuzzy or not or whether it produces constants.
{Matter} needs abstraction
You definitely haven't supported this, and it seems vital for your argument that you do so.
I am still waiting for a single constant that matter produces without abstraction process involving in it.
The proton-to-electron mass ratio.
Though I don't think matter 'produces' constants, nor do I see any reason to think that abstraction can actually do anything.
Can you give me an example of any known abstraction producing anything known in the real world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by MrQ, posted 04-29-2010 2:59 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by MrQ, posted 04-29-2010 6:02 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024