Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 7:10 AM
199 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, Son of Man (3 members, 196 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,041 Year: 16,864/29,783 Month: 852/1,956 Week: 355/331 Day: 14/69 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Author Topic:   Easy proof for Inteligent Design
MrQ
Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 181 of 213 (557393)
04-25-2010 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by PaulK
04-22-2010 7:26 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
observations of physical phenomena -> human minds -> construction of systems to enable modelling physical phenomena -> theorems of these systems.

Remember the theorems are necessarily true only within the systems where they are theorems.

Again you are denying the root of reality that we said include the basics of neccessary truth. I see nothing here that relates to that. Observation of physical phenomena is simply a process inside human mind. So I don't know why you seperated it. I am no longer interested in human mind part. As we concluded that the root of necessary truth are in physics. Now we have to work on that and see what it means and how necessary truths are manifested themselves?

If you review our discussion on concrete and abstract concepts, there is one thing that I mentioned there which is very important:

Axiom: In material world that we know, nothing is static. Everything changes.

For example the apple example, as you said all atoms and molecules change every second but still we call it apple. What remains constant is the abstract part.

But concrete root of necessary truths and physical laws don't change. Therefore, something outside matter is maintaining the special constant relationships which include the necessary truths and physical laws. Simply matter doesn't have the capability. It is created by mind and discovered by mind as it is higher in level than physics and goes in to abstraction. Exactly like the relation of software to the computer. The bits gets stored in memory but memory constantly changes as it is material. Software is logical abstraction system that is responsible to read these information do necessary error detection and correction to maintain and extract information from them again.

In science nobody has worked on this subject. They assume that relations are there as a fact. But nobody asks why they are there and is it normal for matter itself to have such kind of relationship?! Also in brain is like that. We have memories stored in cells that constantly change. We have thoughts and ideas. These thoughts and ideas and memories don't change but our brain change constantly. You simply can not have anything like this unless you have a second layer abstraction over the material world. Simply matter by itself has no capability of having it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2010 7:26 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 5:03 AM MrQ has responded

    
MrQ
Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 182 of 213 (557395)
04-25-2010 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Modulous
04-22-2010 8:59 AM


Re: Work is left to be done
Demonstrate that this is true and you will be close to proving the existence of god. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, abstract concepts require minds. Minds only seem to exist when there is a physical object creating one (ie., a brain). So you are going to have first prove the existence of non physically based minds, which has proven difficult.

Thanks for your participation. Please read the message I sent with title "Summery" in this thread.

To me mind is software of the brain. It runs on the brain that's why it cease to exist without it. As when you run Windows on a PC, if you destroy PC, Windows inside will also get destroyed. But these are two complete different things. Software is information and matter is the mean to store it. To us computers are really redundant as the only reason we create the computers are to use softwares. If we can run our software on something else, we would be still happy.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Modulous, posted 04-22-2010 8:59 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2010 9:01 PM MrQ has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 183 of 213 (557396)
04-25-2010 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by MrQ
04-25-2010 4:51 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:

Again you are denying the root of reality that we said include the basics of neccessary truth.

It seems that you have misunderstood, because I am simply restating my position.

quote:

Observation of physical phenomena is simply a process inside human mind. So I don't know why you seperated it. I am no longer interested in human mind part.

So now you are ONLY interested in talking about physics. Because the formal systems we have been talking about are all constructs of the human mind.

quote:

Axiom: In material world that we know, nothing is static. Everything changes.

Any reason why this should be an axiom ?

quote:

But concrete root of necessary truths and physical laws don't change. Therefore, something outside matter is maintaining the special constant relationships which include the necessary truths and physical laws.

By assuming a contradiction you can "prove" anything. If this lack of change contradicts your axiom then your axiom is false. If it does not your argument is a non-sequitur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 4:51 AM MrQ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 5:35 AM PaulK has responded

    
MrQ
Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 184 of 213 (557397)
04-25-2010 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by PaulK
04-25-2010 5:03 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
It seems that you have misunderstood, because I am simply restating my position.

That's because of the way you put there. There should be something out there for your to observe. So physical reality is the key.

So now you are ONLY interested in talking about physics. Because the formal systems we have been talking about are all constructs of the human mind.

Yes, we are no moving toward the original question's answers.

Any reason why this should be an axiom ?

Because we don't have proof for it. Basically, it is based on inductive reasoning. Material world based on what we know from it now looks like this and behaves like this. This is based on our understanding of the it till now.

If this lack of change contradicts your axiom then your axiom is false. If it does not your argument is a non-sequitur.

I don't understand why it is not the other way around. Do you have a proof for any constants in material world so that show how such a chaos and changing world suddenly gives you a concrete constant?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 5:03 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 5:43 AM MrQ has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 185 of 213 (557398)
04-25-2010 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by MrQ
04-25-2010 5:35 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:

That's because of the way you put there. There should be something out there for your to observe. So physical reality is the key.

And that would be the "physical phenomena" that are observed.

quote:

Yes, we are no moving toward the original question's answers.

Looks more like you're assuming that I agree with your ideas despite my explicit statements to the contrary.

quote:

Because we don't have proof for it. Basically, it is based on inductive reasoning. Material world based on what we know from it now looks like this and behaves like this. This is based on our understanding of the it till now.

So you are now stating that the observed constants do NOT contradict your axiom. If they did your assertion here would be false. And since they do not your axiom is irrelevant.

quote:

I don't understand why it is not the other way around. Do you have a proof for any constants in material world so that show how such a chaos and changing world suddenly gives you a concrete constant?

Why don't the constants that have actually been observed qualify ? The very ones you use in your argument?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 5:35 AM MrQ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 5:57 AM PaulK has responded

    
MrQ
Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 186 of 213 (557400)
04-25-2010 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by PaulK
04-25-2010 5:43 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
Why don't the constants that have actually been observed qualify ? The very ones you use in your argument?

No, because we don't know any process other than abstraction to create them. Exactly like brain and mind. We couldn't find the reasons and the way that mind is created either. We don't know how and why the constants of physics are created and they are there. Also we don't know about why they relations should follow the necessary truths. At least nothing in material world that I know of can create this. Unless you show me the way it works, I don't see matter creates anything constant with its inherent changes. But the only and the only process that I know in this world that create constants is the mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 5:43 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 6:08 AM MrQ has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 187 of 213 (557401)
04-25-2010 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by MrQ
04-25-2010 5:57 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:

No, because we don't know any process other than abstraction to create them.

Nonsense. Abstraction doesn't create what is actually there.

quote:

We don't know how and why the constants of physics are created and they are there

Which won't help you either - arguments from ignorance are fallacious.

quote:

Also we don't know about why they relations should follow the necessary truths.

You mean that we don't know why the systems we create to model aspects of reality actually do model aspects of reality ? Woudn't the fact that we designed them to do just that be the reason ?

quote:

At least nothing in material world that I know of can create this. Unless you show me the way it works, I don't see matter creates anything constant with its inherent changes. But the only and the only process that I know in this world that create constants is the mind.

What actual constants are created by the mind ? I don't know of any.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 5:57 AM MrQ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 6:21 AM PaulK has responded

    
MrQ
Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 188 of 213 (557402)
04-25-2010 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by PaulK
04-25-2010 6:08 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
You mean that we don't know why the systems we create to model aspects of reality actually do model aspects of reality ? Woudn't the fact that we designed them to do just that be the reason ?

I thought that you accepted the fact that necessary truths are there we just formulate and present them. We don't create them. So out model might not look exactly like the actual model but you can't deny that there is an actual model. The more we get close to it the more our model matches the reality.

What actual constants are created by the mind ? I don't know of any.

I didn't categorize constants to actual and non actual. Because there isn't any! Let's say what actual constant do you know so I can work base on that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 6:08 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 6:37 AM MrQ has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 189 of 213 (557404)
04-25-2010 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by MrQ
04-25-2010 6:21 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:

I thought that you accepted the fact that necessary truths are there we just formulate and present them.

Tautologies Iin the broad sense) excepted, I specifically said that I did not. In fact I was quite clear in saying that things that are necessarily true in our models need NOT be necessarily true in reality.

quote:

We don't create them. So out model might not look exactly like the actual model but you can't deny that there is an actual model. The more we get close to it the more our model matches the reality.

Reality is not a model. And even assuming that you are correct the axioms of even a perfect model need not be necessary truths of reality, it is enough that they are true.

quote:

I didn't categorize constants to actual and non actual. Because there isn't any! Let's say what actual constant do you know so I can work base on that.

So now there aren't any constants, so there's no need of God to create them. Please, try to display some consistency.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 6:21 AM MrQ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 7:46 AM PaulK has responded

    
MrQ
Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 190 of 213 (557405)
04-25-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by PaulK
04-25-2010 6:37 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
Tautologies Iin the broad sense) excepted, I specifically said that I did not. In fact I was quite clear in saying that things that are necessarily true in our models need NOT be necessarily true in reality.

Give me one example? You are presenting a looping argument here. First you accepted that necessary truths have some roots in reality. But again you revert back to the rhetoric of tautologies. Think about result of your assumptions. What you basically mean is that necessary truths are hypothetical and product of our minds. They are necessary because we hypothetically think that they are necessary. But in fact they are not! This is the main idea that you accepted before and now changing your mind. Please once again clarify your position. Remember, what you assume has got consequences and once you accept one theory you need to accept its logical results as well.

Reality is not a model. And even assuming that you are correct the axioms of even a perfect model need not be necessary truths of reality, it is enough that they are true.

Ok what you are saying here is that you in fact you want to distinguish between necessity of the truth and the truth themselves. You are claiming that their necessity comes from human mind but truthness is real. With the same analogy I would claim truthness is also hypothetical. Because we call it truth in reality we don't have anything as truth. As I said everything in real world is changing. So you don't have any single constant truth. Therefore, necessary truths are hypothetical and product of human mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 6:37 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 9:16 AM MrQ has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 191 of 213 (557410)
04-25-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by MrQ
04-25-2010 7:46 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:

You are presenting a looping argument here. First you accepted that necessary truths have some roots in reality

I said that the necessary truths in systems designed to model aspects of reality reflect those aspects that they are meant to model. Nothing more.

quote:

Think about result of your assumptions. What you basically mean is that necessary truths are hypothetical and product of our minds.

What I mean is that necessity is the results of our construction of a system or of a statement.

quote:

They are necessary because we hypothetically think that they are necessary. But in fact they are not! This is the main idea that you accepted before and now changing your mind.

I'm not changing my mind at all, I'm simply repeating things that you have apparently ignored. You, on the other hand keep changing your mind, as you did on the existence of constants.

quote:

Ok what you are saying here is that you in fact you want to distinguish between necessity of the truth and the truth themselves. You are claiming that their necessity comes from human mind but truthness is real. With the same analogy I would claim truthness is also hypothetical.

Of course that is not a true representation of my views and your response would hardly be unreasonable. I suppose you could retreat to relatiivty of truth - a common move of religious apologists faced with the fact that their views cannot be defended, but in doing so you give up any claim to have anything to say of any value.

quote:

As I said everything in real world is changing.

And you also said that there are things that aren't changing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 7:46 AM MrQ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 11:33 AM PaulK has responded

    
MrQ
Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 192 of 213 (557416)
04-25-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by PaulK
04-25-2010 9:16 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
I said that the necessary truths in systems designed to model aspects of reality reflect those aspects that they are meant to model. Nothing more.

So reality is random and there is no model for it but we just force a model from our mind on it. Is that what you are saying?

What I mean is that necessity is the results of our construction of a system or of a statement.

Then it is product of mind. As the system and its construction are the products of mind.

I'm not changing my mind at all, I'm simply repeating things that you have apparently ignored. You, on the other hand keep changing your mind, as you did on the existence of constants.

I said constants are product of abstraction. Matter and energy don't have the capabilities to produce them. I never said constants don't exist. To me some abstract things are real. But to logical positivist like you, the only thing that is real is matter and energy which is of course 100% wrong! Mind is real and is abstract. Software is real and it is abstract. We have loads of things that are abstract and they are real. By real I mean that they do exist and they have vivid impact on matter and energy around them. Therefore they exist. They are different than fairy tales.

Of course that is not a true representation of my views and your response would hardly be unreasonable. I suppose you could retreat to relatiivty of truth - a common move of religious apologists faced with the fact that their views cannot be defended, but in doing so you give up any claim to have anything to say of any value.

I am not saying truths are relative but it is you who is saying! You don't say it directly but consequence of what you say is the same.

And you also said that there are things that aren't changing.

Yes they are abstracts that are not changing and they are real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 9:16 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 1:09 PM MrQ has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 193 of 213 (557419)
04-25-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by MrQ
04-25-2010 11:33 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:

So reality is random and there is no model for it but we just force a model from our mind on it. Is that what you are saying?

Not at all. And I cannot see how you could get that impression from anything that I have actually written.

quote:

Then it is product of mind. As the system and its construction are the products of mind.

Yes and no. It really is objectively necessary within the context of the system.

quote:

I said constants are product of abstraction. Matter and energy don't have the capabilities to produce them. I never said constants don't exist.

Re: Necessary Truths (Message 188)


I didn't categorize constants to actual and non actual. Because there isn't any!

Seems pretty clear to me.

And the whole idea that constants are the products of abstraction is still nonsense.

quote:

I am not saying truths are relative but it is you who is saying! You don't say it directly but consequence of what you say is the same.


Complete and utter rubbish. You are the one who wrote:

With the same analogy I would claim truthness is also hypothetical.

When, of course there WAS no analogy.

quote:

Yes they are abstracts that are not changing and they are real.

Abstracts can't cause anything to happen. By definition. So whatever you are thinking of it's an aspect of concrete reality not an abstraction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 11:33 AM MrQ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 1:23 PM PaulK has responded

    
MrQ
Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 194 of 213 (557422)
04-25-2010 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by PaulK
04-25-2010 1:09 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
Yes and no. It really is objectively necessary within the context of the system.

What do you mean yes and no?! We are not dealing with fuzzy logic here. When the system and its context is product of mind then its necessities are also product of mind. Like for example euclidean geometry. It starts with some hypothetical axioms and after that everything is product of mind. But really is it?! does this mean that euclidean geometry have absolutely no relation with reality?

And the whole idea that constants are the products of abstraction is still nonsense.

That's simple my friend. Show me one single constant that isn't as I said and I will be convinced.

When, of course there WAS no analogy.

There was. You agreed the system is product of mind. Its necessities are product of mind. Then why on earth suddenly the truth in it correspond to reality?!

Abstracts can't cause anything to happen. By definition. So whatever you are thinking of it's an aspect of concrete reality not an abstraction.

You yourself categorized software as abstract and I know I can print, change color of the screen and do everything from the software. So software is changing things around it. Of course, it controls everything through some limited and controlled gateways to physical world but the fact that the source and origin of influence starts from software is obvious. The same is true for mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 1:09 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2010 2:08 PM MrQ has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 195 of 213 (557428)
04-25-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by MrQ
04-25-2010 1:23 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:

What do you mean yes and no?!

I mean that given the understanding that we are discussing the statement in the context of the system that it is objectively a necessary truth. And if you are not discussing it in the context of the system, what you are discussing is not really the same statement.

quote:

That's simple my friend. Show me one single constant that isn't as I said and I will be convinced.

Excepting the contribution of units I would say that the actual constants is a part of physical reality and any abstraction is simply a representation of it. 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 ?

quote:

There was. You agreed the system is product of mind. Its necessities are product of mind. Then why on earth suddenly the truth in it correspond to reality?!

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.

quote:

You yourself categorized software as abstract and I know I can print, change color of the screen and do everything from the software. So software is changing things around it.


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.

quote:

Of course, it controls everything through some limited and controlled gateways to physical world but the fact that the source and origin of influence starts from software is obvious. The same is true for mind.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 1:23 PM MrQ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 3:29 PM PaulK has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018