|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Easy proof for Inteligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I think this argument is confusing our descriptions of reality with reality itself. The laws of logic and mathematics are tools we use to build our descriptions and models. Those descriptions and models obviously require a conscious mind. But we cannot say that reality itself - what is described - depends on our descriptions. In fact the whole point of necessary truths is that they are necessarily true. They cannot be false in the absence of a conscious mind because - by definition - they cannot be false under any circumstances. If your argument denies this , then your argument is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
As I pointed out, necessary truths are necessarily true. They can't be false just because there isn't a mind there to observe that they are true. So on the matter of necessary truths your argument fails.
I think that you are confusing a vague idea of what it means for a statement to exist with what it means for a statement to be true. If we accepted that a statement could not exist without someone to think of it, it could still be true, even if nobody existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But it is, if you understand it. Your argument relies on denying that simple and obvious fact, and that is why it is the answer.
quote: A statement - as it relates to the actual world - is a purported description of reality. If it accurately describes reality we say that it is true. But it is the statement that depends on a mind for it's existence not the reality it describes. And that is your mistake - to assume that reality is dependent on the statement.
quote: Again you are confusing the existence of a statement with the truth of a statement. Show me a necessary truth that can be false and maybe you'd have a case. But you can't because by definition a necessary truth cannot be false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, I'm not. You are denying an obvious fact.
quote: Again you keep making the same mistake. I am not speaking of existence, I am speaking of truth. They are not the same thing. We can speak of a hypothetical universe that has no minds we can speak about what would be true there - and your argument does this very thing. If the statements are true in that universe, then their truth must be independent of the existence of minds in that universe - the very thing that your argument denies. The fact that the statement cannot "exist" in that universe does not make it untrue in that universe.
quote: You mean what if there were no objective reality, just what we say ? I would say that our universe does not appear to be that way.
quote: You must have some strange experiences if it includes minds controlling the collapse of quantum superpositions. I've only seen that in science fiction.
quote: If that were true, how could a statement be false ? I already explained what the truth is when making statements about the real world (and you need to know that necessary truth tell us nothing about the real world).
quote: I disagree with everything there. If 1 + 1 = 2 is simply the consequence of an axiomatic model (and since I believe that minds are based on the material world even that does not fit your bill) it has no necessary connection to reality. If it is considered as a model of some aspect of reality, then reality is still primary and does not depend on the model.
quote: All I am asking for is a logical truth that would be false in a universe without minds. You have a mind. You can make statements. That's all that is needed. If you cannot talk coherently about a universe without minds then you cannot even say that statements would not exist in such a universe. If you can then you should be able to tell me which logical truths would be false in such a universe - and in fact you need to be able to for your argument to work. (But of course, if you could then you wouldn't be able to talk coherently about that universe after all. So your position is necessarily false).
quote: I wouldn't create one. But I could say that "if we have a random soup of energy of mass then we have a random soup of energy and mass" is true - and that is a necessary truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I already did. A statement is true for that universe if it corresponds to the reality of that universe. Thus "there is no mind in the universe" would be true in that universe. And it would be true despite the fact that there is nobody in that universe to think of that statement. Logical truths of course do not speak of anything in the universe - they are true because of their structure. But since, by their structure, they must be true they are true anywhere and everywhere whether anyone thinks of them or not. (And I have no doubt that there are a huge number of logical truths that nobody has thought of).
quote: I'm not contradicting myself because I have pointed out the fact that statements may be true in that universe EVEN IF THEY DO NOT EXIST in that universe. And in the case of necessary truths, they MUST be true, even if nobody has thought of them. And if you disagree with that then YOU are contradicting yourself because you are denying that necessary truths are necessary truths.
quote: Since the argument is primarily about concrete entities the question of the reality of abstracts needn't arise. So it would be better for me to ask if you are denying the reality of concrete entities.
quote: You raised the issue of information in physics, and your claim was incorrect.
quote: Which goes back to the existence question, not whether the statement is true or not. Please stop thinking about the existence of statements because it only confuses the issue. Concentrate on their truth.
quote: My "problem" is apparently in thinking that necessary truths are necessary truths. As for the reality of logical truth I would want to read the article (and if it agreed with you without qualification I would want to check the edit history !) - and it's up to you to provide a link. Since you haven't even provided the title of the article your citation is worthless. I'm not about to go searching for an article that I can't reliably identify.
quote:In this case it would be the concrete objects that actually exist. (I don't consider abstractions to exist in the same sense and I don't wish to confuse the issue - but let us note that your position doesn't seem to be too friendly to the reality of abstract objects). quote: Only to formulate the logical truths - not to make them true. They are true whether they have been formulated or not. If they weren't they wouldn't be necessary truths.
quote: Obviously you are NOT saying the same thing. Again you confuse the truth of a statement with the existence of a statement. Even worse you assume that I make the same mistake even after telling you again and again that it is a mistake.
quote: Which doesn't tell us that logical truths wouldn't be true in that universe. And since they must be true then it is proven that the truth of a statement need not be mind-dependent.
quote: See above. And consider what it means to say that that statement is false.In fact consider what it means to deny that there can be true statements about such a universe when your whole argument relies on making such claims...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: OK, so you DON'T have even a basic idea of logic or logical truths. That is a bit unfortunate.What's wrong with the example I already gave: "if we have a random soup of energy of mass then we have a random soup of energy and mass" quote: Please don't try to tell me that my views are the opposite of what they really are. I keep telling you that we DON'T need statements to exist for them to be true. Their existence is a red herring.
quote: In that case for all relevant statements the truth is NOT the statement itself. Your question is another red herring. In fact I don't think I should answer it until you explain what you think it means for an abstraction to be "real". There's too much risk of confusion.
quote: I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. My point is that we should concentrate on the question of whether statements are true within whatever hypothetical situation we are considering without considering whether they would exist within it. Obviously the statements we are considering must exist in our reality.
quote: That isn't what I am saying at all. I don't recognise any "creation" of logical truths other than the formulation of statements. Logical truths are simply statements that must be true - because they are tautologies. The only discovery would be like mathematical discovery, working out how the system works.
quote: That depends on what you are talking about. If you mean counting on fingers it is meaningless without fingers to count on If you are talking about an axiomatic system we are back to logical truths (it must be true within that system). I say that the concept is one that we invented to describe reality, placing it closer to the axiomatic system - however how and even if it applies to physical reality depends on the nature of physical reality.
quote: The only clarification I would make is that whether the statement is true or not - subjective opinions excepted - is a matter of objective fact. The mind's judgement does not influence or change that.
quote: I don't claim that. What I claim is that logical truths must be true, whether they exist or not, whether anyone knows that they are true or not. And as they are necessary truths, this must be the case.
quote: If there is an objective reality - as you admitted - there must be things that are true of it independent of mind. Thus your argument fails.
quote: Your whole argument depends on a contradiction, while you have found not one genuine contradiction in my arguments. If we accept that necessary truths ARE necessary truths we have no need of a "universal mind" to somehow make them true. That is a fact, that cannot be reasonably denied.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Ultimately all logical truths are like that. That is the point.
quote: From my position that is completely irrelevant. It doesn't need to. All it needs to do is be what it is. According to your position, in the absence of minds it can't even do that. Doesn't that sound just a little bit silly to you ?
quote: Since they don't NEED to be evaluated that is irrelevant.
quote: THe existence of the sun is NOT a logical truth. It's an example of an empirically derived truth. At the simplest level you see the sun and conclude that it exists. You can't work it out by pure reason alone.
quote: And you are wrong to do so. We need the statement to evaluate it - but only for us to work out if it is true or not. Not for it to BE true. And that is why I tell you to forget about the existence of statements, it is irrelevant and it confuses the issue. That's been your problem all along.
quote: It only needs us to formulate them. No other source is needed or would even add anything. Again you are hung up on the existence of statements - when it just doesn't matter.
quote: The only information you NEED is the basic axioms - say, the truth tables for AND, OR, NOT. You could use a few other items to construct statements using them, but what they are doesn't matter (besides you could make them up - they don't need to be true)
quote: The things we model with it - or some of them - existed but I wouldn't call that a "deep meaning". What "deep meaning" are you talking about ?
quote: And that's what I've been saying all along. Physics doesn't need a mind. It just needs stuff to do what it does.
quote: Well no, you started this thread to disagree and insist that a mind had to be involved. Logical truths are true because they are constructed so that they HAVE to be true. The law of non-contradiction holds because the negation of a statement is defined as covering all possibilities excluded by the statement and only those possibilities. Thus a statement and it's negation may never both be true because each excludes the possibility that the other is true. There's nothing more to it. It's not magic, it doesn't require any knowledge beyond the basic axioms and an understanding of which ever statements you want to use. There's no need for anyone else to get involved.
quote: And you are completely and utterly wrong. No source other than the human is needed. Because logic is about how you use statements, not about the external world. The laws of logic are semantic rules, not laws governing reality.
quote: And, as I said above, it's because they are constructed to be true. It's all our doing. You could do it, if you knew how (and the basic rules aren't difficult - the only hard bit is making sure that you REALLY understand the statements that you are using and that they are COMPLETELY unambiguous).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I want to try to get back to the basics.
1) Do you agree that necessary truths are necessarily true ? 2) How, exactly does the dependence of physics on necessary truths work ?Is it merely a requirement that the necessary truths, must in fact be true ? If it is not, then what is it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which leaves us the question of just what role they play in your argument.
quote: Neither E=mc^2 nor the concept of equality are necessary truths. And what is the relevance of writing the equation ? The equation is just a description of the relationship between mass and energy. That relationship would apply even if the equation were never known (unless you are denying that there is an objective reality).
quote: Do they ? Which ones ?
quote: Of course necessary truths were tue before there were humans ! That isn't problematic in the slightest. But in what way do they need to be "present" for the laws of physics ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote:. You mean before you can describe it. It doesn't need any sort of definitions. How could it ? quote: I have never said that they were random - certainly not in the sense that you mean here. But that is getting away from the basic point I am trying to discuss.
quote: Both of the necessary truths you list are necessary only as a product of the definitions of the terms involved. And addition was intended to represent aspects of the real world so it is not surprising that it does so. The question is, can the meaning of these statements still be true even if there is no one to define the terms or formulate the statements or evaluate their truth ?If they are truly necessary truths then surely they must be ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I don't see why a tautology has to "be there" to be true. And I can't think of anything concrete that they would need. Your example of 1 + 1 = 2 deals entirely with abstractions,
quote: And I repeat that equality and addition are abstractions that we invented to describe aspects of reality. But the relationship described by E = mc^2 is not dependent on those concepts. So I am still waiting for some sort of explanation of how physics is dependent on "necessary truths" in a way that supports your argument.
quote: Which one would that be ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But not in any way that helps your case. What is in the real world is NOT necessarily true.
quote: No, they don't. And necessary truths are true because they are tautologies. Nothing in the real world is needed.
quote: Actually I am asking you to explain your claims. Obviously the real phenomenon is not dependent on the terms and formulas and descriptions we invent to describe it. So which necessary truths does it dependo no, and how ? And how does this help your argument ?
quote: If you think that this represents any sort of change in my position, you haven't been paying attention.
quote: I said no such thing.
quote: I don't know what you are trying to say here. If necessary truths could be false there would be a problem but as you have conceded this is not possible. If a necessary truth isn't known by any conscious being on the other hand there is no problem at all,because physical laws do not depend on that at all. So come on, explain your argument. Because my intuition says that it is obviously wrong and I want to track down the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote:Asking for an explanation is NOT twisting your words in any way. quote: I suggest reading my posts instead of guessing. If you had you would know that I do NOT agree that intuition gives us necessary truths.
quote: You are confusing the capability of intuition with the specific beliefs that are produced by intuition. Intuition is more about processing data - subconsciously - than about preprogrammed beliefs. And, as I have already said, necessary truths do not come from intuition. And in fact the necessary truths of mathematics are necessary only in the mathematical systems that we construct to represent reality - not in reality itself. However, let us get back to the point since you do not address it. In what way is physics dependent on necessary truths ? Is it dependent on them being true or on something else ? If it is something else, then what ? How does this support your argument that there must be some eternal mind ? This is the core of your argument and you will not explain it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which specifically says that the matter is debated. And in fact NEITHER side agrees with you.The first side only states that our intuition can identify necessary truths, not that it provides us with necessary truths:
The only intuitions that are relevant in analytic philosophy are 'rational' intuitions. These are intellectual seemings that something is necessarily the case.
The second side states that:
Intuitions are a species of belief, and based ultimately in experience.
Which obviously disagrees with you.
quote: Potentially any and all data available to us, of course. We may not even have a good way of telling since it is subconscious and may use data that we are not even consciously aware of.
quote: It would make thing much easier if you were to actually pay attention to my posts. The answer is neither. All necessary truths are tautologies, thus they are neither illusions nor reflections of the physical world. As I have stated there are necessary truths within the models that we build to represent aspects of the physical world. But they are necessary because they are tautologies within the model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So you DIDN'T say that we get necessary truths from our intuition. So where do YOU think we get them from ?
quote: In what sense would our minds create a necessary truth ? In what sense would it be "always there" ? I don't think that either option really captures the truth. It's obvious that our minds formulate necessary truths. It is obvious that they are true whether they are formulated or not. How do those facts fit with your two options ?
quote: You are heading off track. Since I don't accept that we really learn genuinely necessary truths through intuition at all how can the workings of intuition be relevant to how we learn necessary truths ?
quote: Both follow necessarily from the axioms of the systems that contain them. Put them in a different system and they might not even be true or even meaningful.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024