Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 8:36 AM
35 online now:
Aussie, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   Chance moves in mysterious ways.
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 31 of 99 (442531)
12-21-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
12-21-2007 2:39 PM


It's not mentioned in the OP.

Look again!

Scientists also argue that existence of god is not scientifically falsifiable because god is, by definition, not testable. (My assumption here is that scientifically recordable properties do not apply to god, by definition).

Is consistency with a law a scientifically recordable property, or not?

I'm using the mathematical concept of precision. Whether there is a precise value that cannot be discovered or - as we've been agreeing on this thread no precise value to discovered makes no difference to that.

Wrong. That is your own conclusion based on your classical understanding of an observable. I have not agreed with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 2:39 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 4:41 PM sinequanon has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 32 of 99 (442555)
12-21-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by sinequanon
12-21-2007 3:18 PM


quote:

Is consistency with a law a scientifically recordable property, or not?

Since that isn't the issue you confirm my point that the OP doesn't address the issue of God choosing to intervene in a consistent fashion.

quote:

Wrong. That is your own conclusion based on your classical understanding of an observable. I have not agreed with you.

Just to see you wriggle some more on the hook of self-contradiction, what exactly is wrong with it ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 3:18 PM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 4:52 PM PaulK has responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 33 of 99 (442558)
12-21-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
12-21-2007 4:41 PM


Since that isn't the issue you confirm my point that the OP doesn't address the issue of God choosing to intervene in a consistent fashion.

So you are twisting your position from claiming a premise does not exist in the OP to claiming that the OP does not "address" the issue of the premise. You are clearly using little sense of logic. I'll leave you there. Thank you and have a good day. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 4:41 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 4:57 PM sinequanon has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 34 of 99 (442560)
12-21-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by sinequanon
12-21-2007 4:52 PM


If you had any familiarity with logic you'd understand that failing to address a claim includes not mentioning it as a premise. But by all means run away - you're only embarassing yourself with your twistings and writhings.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by sinequanon, posted 12-21-2007 4:52 PM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 5:36 AM PaulK has responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 35 of 99 (442639)
12-22-2007 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
12-21-2007 4:57 PM


PaulK writes:

If you had any familiarity with logic you'd understand that failing to address a claim includes not mentioning it as a premise. But by all means run away - you're only embarassing yourself with your twistings and writhings.

I was right. You don't understand what a premise is.

Forgive me if I aim the rest of my post towards people who can argue logically.

1. A single photon can be projected at a sensitive film through two slits (the famous quantum two slit experiment). The result is a point recorded on the film as a visible mark.

2. Theory says there is no way to force the repeat of this outcome, i.e a dot at the same, or approximately the same point. There is a random component in the outcome that is nothing to do with the starting conditions.

3. This implies truly non-deterministic behaviour in nature (as distinct from very complex or chaotic behaviour described by a non-deterministic model).

4. Several outcomes may fit an overall pattern but the order in which that pattern appears is a random component of the result.

5. So we have a phenomenon which science accepts is not only unknowable so far, but is unknowable by nature and which has real physical consequence in nature.

6. Isn't that what God is all about? So why doesn't science accept god, too?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2007 4:57 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 6:40 AM sinequanon has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 36 of 99 (442645)
12-22-2007 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 5:36 AM


quote:

I was right. You don't understand what a premise is.

To anyone familiar with logic that is a non-sequitur.

quote:

1. A single photon can be projected at a sensitive film through two slits (the famous quantum two slit experiment). The result is a point recorded on the film as a visible mark.

2. Theory says there is no way to force the repeat of this outcome, i.e a dot at the same, or approximately the same point. There is a random component in the outcome that is nothing to do with the starting conditions.

3. This implies truly non-deterministic behaviour in nature (as distinct from very complex or chaotic behaviour described by a non-deterministic model).

4. Several outcomes may fit an overall pattern but the order in which that pattern appears is a random component of the result.

5. So we have a phenomenon which science accepts is not only unknowable so far, but is unknowable by nature and which has real physical consequence in nature.

6. Isn't that what God is all about? So why doesn't science accept god, too?


I'll leave Cavediver to argue the question of determinism.

Your "logic" falls over at point 5. As I pointed out early on, we have a statistical model that describes the behaviour of the photon. That is what is meant by "chance". "Chance" is not proposed as a "thing" that actually exists, or actually causes anything. I'll point out again that rather than an unknown cause (which would be a form of determinism, which you are denying) chance is the absence of a sufficient cause.

And it falls over again at point 6. The "chance' you refer to is an element of a model that matches the observations. It is tested in the lab. There ARE repeatable experiments, such as the one you describe ! Yet in the OP you assert that there are no equivalent experiments for God. Thus, a clear and obvious difference is present from your own words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 5:36 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 7:36 AM PaulK has responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 37 of 99 (442658)
12-22-2007 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
12-22-2007 6:40 AM


PaulK writes:

I'll point out again that rather than an unknown cause (which would be a form of determinism, which you are denying) chance is the absence of a sufficient cause.

Are you suggesting there is something like an insufficient cause?

(Please answer the question and don't use your evasion tactic of simply calling it irrelevant).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 6:40 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 9:29 AM sinequanon has responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 38 of 99 (442671)
12-22-2007 9:21 AM


Silence.

I take it the import of that question was lost on you, PaulK.

Let me help you with a step by step simplification.

1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).

2. B was caused. Call the cause A.

3. PaulK says there is no sufficient cause of B.

4. Therefore A is an insufficient cause of B.

5. So A caused B but was not sufficient to cause B.

That appears to be the conclusion from PaulK's logic, unless he can pinpoint what he disagrees with and which step.


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 9:37 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 39 of 99 (442672)
12-22-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 7:36 AM


quote:

Are you suggesting there is something like an insufficient cause?

We'll add "sufficient cause" to the list of things you don't understand. A suffiicent cause would completely dictate the behaviour of the photon. If there is a random element in the behaviour then there is no causal factor or combination of causal factors sufficient to fully explain the photon's behaviour. You may choose to call a causal factor that influences but does not dicated behaviour an "insufficient cause" but I've not seen anyone else use that terminology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 7:36 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 9:53 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 40 of 99 (442673)
12-22-2007 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 9:21 AM


For your information, I was busy with more important things than remedying your ignorance.

quote:

1. Effect 'B' happens (in above example dot marked on film).

2. B was caused. Call the cause A.

3. PaulK says there is no sufficient cause of B.

4. Therefore A is an insufficient cause of B.

5. So A caused B but was not sufficient to cause B.


Remember that this is the situation that YOU described.

Now you can describe the dot on the film as being caused by the photon impact. However your argument is about the location of the photon's arrival, so this is not the point. You assert that the location that the photon arrives at is "random", and that the probability distribution for the photon's arrival is that corresponding to the interference pattern expected by the wave model of light. Thus according to your own argument there are causal influences, but they are not sufficient to explain why the photon hit that particular point on the film.

You really need to get away from compulsive nay-saying and actually try to understand what you are talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 9:21 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 41 of 99 (442676)
12-22-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
12-22-2007 9:29 AM


We'll add "sufficient cause" to the list of things you don't understand.

Your tendency to either draw conclusions from questions or to evade them altogether and claim they are "not the point", is the reason logical argument with you is so difficult.

Now, once again, can you please pinpoint the step in the above (numbers at the side to help you) that you disagree with. No waffle. Just a number and an explanation of why you think the step is illogical.

Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 9:29 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 10:07 AM sinequanon has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 42 of 99 (442681)
12-22-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 9:53 AM


quote:

Your tendency to either draw conclusions from questions or to evade them altogether and claim they are "not the point", is the reason logical argument with you is so difficult.

I am afraid that your inability to think logically is entirely your own problem.

quote:

Now, once again, can you please pinpoint the step in the above (numbers at the side to help you) that you disagree with. No waffle. Just a number and an explanation of why you think the step is illogical.

Message 40 above provides a full explanation. No waffle. Take your time to think about it. I'm off for a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 9:53 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 10:24 AM PaulK has responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 43 of 99 (442687)
12-22-2007 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by PaulK
12-22-2007 10:07 AM


Obviously, you have no logical reason for you position.

I can only assume you have a random "gut feeling" for the validity of your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 10:07 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 1:08 PM sinequanon has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 44 of 99 (442723)
12-22-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by sinequanon
12-22-2007 10:24 AM


quote:

Obviously, you have no logical reason for you position.

Obviously I do, since I laid out my explanation. Obviously you are unable to produce a valid response to it - since you have not done so.

The fact is that your position has been shown to be an incoherent mess. You've given up even the pretence of honestly discussing the issues.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 10:24 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by sinequanon, posted 12-22-2007 1:12 PM PaulK has responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 45 of 99 (442725)
12-22-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
12-22-2007 1:08 PM


Final chance. In the 5 points listed above, please pinpoint what you say is the "mess" in the logic. Post one digit.

Failing that you accept all five points and your argument has collapsed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 1:08 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2007 1:47 PM sinequanon has responded

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019