Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9094 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,666 Year: 12,778/6,534 Month: 61/2,210 Week: 2/390 Day: 2/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof Synthesis
Russell E. Rierson
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 6 (68699)
11-22-2003 11:14 PM


This is an interpretation of Anslem, Langan, Leibniz, Goedel, and Hartshorne.
1. Matter is a form of energy; energy is primary to matter.
2. Energy is defined[ in physics] as the ability to do work.
3. Work is defined as [Force*Distance].
4. Force is an aspect of a distributed field; fields are primary to energy.
5. Physical laws determine the dynamics of quantum fields; physical law is primary to fields.
6. Physical laws must have a principle of organization.
7. Either physical laws result from a unifying principle of organization, or, physical laws result from an infinite regress.
8. Infinite regress is an absurdity, therefore, physical laws are the result of an organizing principle.
9. "Organizing principle" implies purpose, purpose implies mind.
10. If the "organizing principle" is derivative of mind, then mind is primary to physical law.
11.The mind that is primary to physical law is called "God"
Definition:
G = God = creator
C = creation = that wich is created
C is dependent on G.
Without G, C would not exist.
P--->Q
means "if P then Q" ,
P
therefore Q
[1.] G is necessary or G is impossible, G or not-G
[2..] If G exists, G's existence is necessary, "N" , G--->N[G]
[3.] The existence of G is not a contradiction
[4.] Therefore G is not impossible
[5.] N[G] or not-N[G]
[6.] not-N[G]--->N{not-N[G]}
[7.] N[G] or N{not-N[G]}
[8.] N{not-N[G]}--->N[not-G]
[9.] N[G] or N[not-G]
[10.] not-N[not-G]
[11.] N[G]
[12.] G
`
[This message has been edited by Russell E. Rierson, 11-22-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by sidelined, posted 11-22-2003 11:46 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 3 by :æ:, posted 11-23-2003 12:38 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 4 by Mike Holland, posted 11-23-2003 6:31 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 5 by world, posted 12-05-2003 11:45 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2003 1:01 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5337 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 2 of 6 (68702)
11-22-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-22-2003 11:14 PM


Russel
" Matter is a form of energy; energy is primary to matter."
Matter refers to little more than "quantity of substance"
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.
The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol I, p 4-1
Have we somehow found out what energy is these days?
". Energy is defined[ in physics] as the ability to do work."
E=MC*2 Energy equals mass[mass is the measure of resistance to being accelerated by a force]times the velocity of light squared.
When a state of maximum entropy is reached energy becomes unavailable for doing work.
"Physical laws must have a principle of organization."
How do you justify this statement?
It would appear that things are not as cut and dried as you would make them appear.
------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-22-2003 11:14 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 3 of 6 (68737)
11-23-2003 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-22-2003 11:14 PM


A few comments...
Russel E. Rierson writes:
5. Physical laws determine the dynamics of quantum fields; physical law is primary to fields.
Physical law does not determine quantum field dynamics, it describes them. Physical law is not primary to fields. Physical law is our post-hoc description of reality's behavior.
Russel E. Rierson writes:
6. Physical laws must have a principle of organization.
Says who? You? Why should we accept this as a premise?
Russel E. Rierson writes:
Infinite regress is an absurdity...
Again, why should we accept this as a premise? Just because you say so? I find nothing necessarily absurd about infinite regress.
Russel E. Rierson writes:
[9.] N[G] or N[not-G]
[10.] not-N[not-G]
[11.] N[G]
[12.] G
I think this is a good opportunity to demonstrate the inconsistency of Modal Logic. Beginning at [9] we have:
[9.] N[G] or N[not-G]
[10.] Not-N[G]
[11.] N[not-G]
[12.] Not-G
What good is a proof if it can be made to prove contradictory statements?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-22-2003 11:14 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 4 of 6 (68824)
11-23-2003 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-22-2003 11:14 PM


The reasoning here is questionable at every stage, as previous respondents have shown. I just want to add my bit.
An organising principle does not imply mind. If you shake up marbles in a box, they become ordered. Crystals forming in a solution show order. In both cases the ordering principle is the way the universe works, and has nothing to do with mind.
So, to follow your style of reasoning, ordering principles are subordinate to physical law. Which makes your argument circular!
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-22-2003 11:14 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
world
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 6 (71319)
12-05-2003 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-22-2003 11:14 PM


___________
Infinite regress is an absurdity, therefore, physical laws are the result of an organizing principle.
___________
So God exists because it would be absurd for God to not exist?
Are you trying to use the word absurd first so that it will sound funny when it is thrown back at you?
Your logical scheme for God is astounding, to say the least.
I read and "understood" each line of your Boulian bonanza, but was left with more of a feeling that I had just finished a really bad crossword puzzle than a newfound belief in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-22-2003 11:14 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5249 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 6 (71457)
12-07-2003 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson
11-22-2003 11:14 PM


Too late on the draw on this one. :ae: delivered almost everything I was going to throw at you. This is truly your most problematic argument to date.
From point 5 (where you mistake models as determining rather than predicting dynamics) on, I can find few planks that are either logically necessary or accurate to our understanding of the world.
In addition to the other posters' valid points, here are a couple other ones:
1) Quantum Mechanics does not show order at all. While I believe there may be an underlying deterministic model discovered at some later date, right now the money is not on that. So at the subatomic level there is no principle of organization.
2) There is no known unified principle in physics. While they hold that at as a holy grail, it is currently just as mythic. There appears to be many separate forces acting independently and without organization.
I think the best you can escape with, and that is with everyone granting you some terrible leaps of logic, is that there may be a pantheon of gods struggling to assert some sort of order, but the plans have not been finalized.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Russell E. Rierson, posted 11-22-2003 11:14 PM Russell E. Rierson has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022