If Darwinism fails then supernatural causes are back on the table and should be included in science.
I do not think there can be a science of the supernatural.
I do not think that if Darwinism fails that supernatural causes will become acceptable.
If the hope of ID is that supernatural causes will be allowed back into science if they can only just get rid of Darwinism, ID is doomed.
The tools and methods of ID cannot differentiate a supernatural cause from a natural cause anyways.
Thoughts?
All those questions will be answered in FMM 201. Hint, omnipotence and everybody gets some.
Relevant to some topics recently discussed here:
Getting it right: Truth is neither absolute nor timeless. But the pursuit of truth remains at the heart of the scientific endeavour.
I don’t know what you mean by “any reasonable definition.” Some allow it, some don’t. It’s inconsistent with numerical identity by definition. That’s even obvious by the term! (Or at least ought to be.)
I’m not impressed. “The pursuit of truth” is a poor way of describing science.
Truth is a property of propositions. Unless you are starting with propositions, you cannot be searching for truth. If you are trying to answer “Who killed JFK?” then you can reasonably be said to be in pursuit of truth. But science is driven by curiosity and looks at broad “how” questions, such as “How do stars form?”
If the scientists come up with a satisfying explanation, they will declare that to be truth. But they were searching for a satisfying explanation, not for truth. And if they later come up with an even better explanation, they will abandon their first explanation and declare their second explanation to be true.
In terms of truth, science is really establishing truth conventions. So, at best, it is truth by social convention. On the other hand, when scientists make a specific observation, as guided by their explanation, then they can say that the observation is true. What makes it true, is that it meets the standards set by the explanatory theory (or by the measuring conventions that arise from the theory).
If you want to insist that scientists are actually finding truth with their explanatory theories, then you have to deal with the “pessimistic induction” that they will eventually abandon the current explanatory theory in favor of a better one. If, instead, you see the explanatory theory as a pragmatic convention, then the “pessimistic induction” problem takes care of itself.
Huh? Who ever suggested it might be a necessary truth?
ETA: Incidentally, this confusion between what MUST BE TRUE and what is DEFINITELY KNOWN is pretty rampant with your posts. You really need to start distinguishing between being and being known. It’s like the first thing I have to get through to freshman philosophy students. I’ve been on you about this for years now! You can do it!
No no no.
Helpful, thanks for the link.
The first 2/3 is a good summary of issues, but it did seem to be that she focuses mainly on her perspectivalist version of realism in the remainder.
(Or maybe that is just my own perspective based on some previous exposure to her — OK that’s probably one cheap joke too many for today).
Yes, yes, that argument and others are well known and dealt with by philosophers over the at least the last 50 years of so. Of course, not all philosophers agree that the counters to those your objections have been successful.
I think the link KN provides is simply a useful intro to modern philosophy; SEP is there if you want to start to engage with modern philosophy seriously. Psillos 1999 is a bit dated by still very good summary by a realist.
Is this a reliable source?
Wikipedia says
*My emphasis. This seems close to my point about “my name is Neil”.
Well, the Kirk transporter malfunction was about perfect replication. If you have two Kirks that are utterly identical to the last particle, momenta etc. then they would both know they were Kirk and there would be no way for anyone to decide if one or other were the “real” Kirk.
Not being able to decide which one is the real Kirk is not remotely the same thing as there being two Kirks.
peace
Do you mind if I have ask some questions.
Divine simplicity holds that the being of God is identical to the “attributes” of God. Do you think this doctrine is logically impossible?
Do you think that panpsychism is logically impossible?
What about pantheism?
What about animism?
Here is compiled list of Greek gods and goddesses who like Veritas and Aletheia (truth) personify more abstract concepts such as envy, affection, and wealth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Personifications_in_Greek_mythology
Do you think this sort of thing is logically impossible? Not just wrong but logically impossible?
thanks in advance
peace
Truth is necessary for knowledge but truth is not knowledge.
Revelation is not a bridge between truth and knowledge it is a bridge between two persons. One who knows already and one who comes to know.
peace
Testimony is not revelation.
I don’t think it’s ever appropriate to use testimony as justification. Only revelation will do for that.
The key word here is reveal.
peace
The short answer is of course revelation. God himself reveals the source of the revelation. How exactly that plays itself is a different question.
The point is that God being omnipotent can reveal something to us in such a way that we can know it is from him
But you have experienced it. I know you have because God has revealed it to me. (Romans 1:19)
No I rely on a trustworthy God who reveals.
The way God reveals stuff is another question. It’s Interesting but not exactly relevant to this discussion.
Knowledge is at it’s heart a gift from God.
It’s not something you get if you exert the proper effort alone or in community.
It’s something God gives graciously
quote:
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
(Jas 1:5)
peace
You walked right into it, Bruce. That airtight calvinist worldview trumps millenia of philosophic inquiry. All your base are belong to god
First, I will be clear that all my questions are serious. I find your views utterly foreign and mysterious, of course. But I am interested in understanding them.
If knowledge is by revelation and by God’s grace, why do you participate here? Is it something that is only part of your spiritual journey, or do you think you can influence others on their journeys?
I participate here to learn things from discussion, to share my views (at length at times!), and to learn from others and from feedback. But that does not seem to me to be the case for you, since I understand you think one can only gain knowledge by revelation, not by discussion or research.
I cannot understand, for example, what your purpose could be when you ask other posters “how do you know that” ? I had thought you were encouraging them to think more deeply and perhaps change their views. But if the new knowledge required for such a change must be revealed to them by God, then asking them to think more deeply cannot help. So why ask it?
It would seem to follow from your view that all scientific and technological knowledge has been revealed by God, and the related research was pointless somehow. Is that the case?
Is that the calvinist view? I really am ignorant of these worldviews, but as far as I know they are grounded in a serious intellectual tradition.
I’d contrast that serious tradition that with the quantum woo espoused eg by J-M. That set of ideas seem shallow and facile to me. I don’t take such such worldviews seriously. I do have exchanges with him, but they are mainly to pontificate about QM and to play obscure games with YT links.
Davidson and others might agree with you.
He argues (according to Wikipedia), like you, that there would nevertheless be a difference, though no one would notice it. Yet neither he nor you can articulate what that might be.
I agree with Dennett both that the thought experiment doesn’t teach anything, being so far removed from reality and that it is up to those who claim that two things that are precisely identical to the last particle and wave are nonetheless not identical to explain how.
They both are. They both believe they are and they are both correct. I asked you before how can you distinguish one elementary particle from another. At what level does it become possible to discern a difference between two utterly identical arrangements of elementary particles? Two hydrogen atoms? What’s the cut-off?
Knowledge is a gift but it must be received. The problem with other approaches is that the place the onerous on the receiver while Christianity places it where it belongs on the giver.
Probably the best way to put the reason why I participate here is that I’m hoping and expecting God to use this arrangement to reveal something to me. Conversely It might be the other participants here who reveal something about themselves.
Either way it’s God who is ultimately responsible for my knowledge. I could exert all kinds of effort and still remain in ignorance. God is even ultimately responsible for my desire to participate here.
Scientific research is worship when it’s done with the understanding that I just enumerated. It’s a scientist in dialogue with his God using the language of mathematics and observation . A beautiful thing
Think about the feeling that you get when something amazing about the world is revealed to you that was previously hidden for some reason. It’s sublime is it not? Don’t you get a feeling that the knowledge came from somewhere else?
On the other hand when science is done as an attempt to gain understanding of the world alone by your own efforts it can only provide data never knowledge.
I think It’s a necessary entailment of God’s sovereignty and man’s total depravity.
But as with most revelation it’s progressive. I would not go so far as to say that John Calvin understood these matters exactly like I do.
peace
I think Einstein expressed similar ideas. I suspect many scientists who think deeply about it would feel that way. But many would not believe in a personal God, but rather something more akin to Spinoza’s God, as did Einstein
I don’t think that matters.
It could be exactly the same thing,if there were two Kirks ,one test might be whether you are able to distinguish one Kirk from the other. If they were both created by the same pattern in the transporter simultaneously , both would be just as real.
If there was a supernaturalness necessary to be Kirk, one would need to determine how that supernatural essence worked in the normal operation of the transporter first.
Any ideas?
It seems to me ,the belief that man is totally depraved elevates man to a kind of perfection. Imperfectly depraved seems less boastful. Leaves some room so that for Hilter and Stalin are not equivalent to a two year old in depravity.
That’s all OK except that it’s not responsive.
One is here, the other is there (ETA: and at the same time).
It doesn’t matter whether anybody can tell. If there are two of them, they aren’t numerically identical (by definition). And in any case, if they’re in different places, they don’t have all their properties in common (unless you construct a Max Black world–which I’ve discussed here previously). For X and Y to be identical it/they has/have to have ALL its/their properties in common, not just ones you happen to find interesting at the moment.
Sorry for butting in. I was not sure if you had lost interest.
It’s fine. The point is that two indexical statements are context relevant, meaning that they don’t express the same proposition. That’s why one can be true and another false. IOW, you need to think and read about this stuff more and make fewer posts.
Exactly.
I’ve repeatedly said it’s a pretty daft thought experiment. I’ll concede, though I never claimed it in the first place, that two entities in different locations means their initial precise identity fades from the moment of their creation, but they’re still both the real Kirk.
OK, shoot.
I don’t know what “the being of God” means. If you mean that God is identical to his attributes, some philosophers do hold that there are no substances other than conglomerations of properties. My sense is that that doctrine is (metaphysically) impossible if it’s false and necessary if it’s true–whether or not the thing in question is God or my pen. I don’t think anybody in the world is in a position to say which with much confidence.
But that doesn’t matter anyhow. If X = a particular concatenation of a, b, c, etc., It still wouldn’t make a = c. And that’s what you’re doing here.
No.
Depends on what something has to be in order to be a God. Your version would probably be impossible. However, If it just means that individual consciousnesses are somehow combined to make bigger ones and the universe is the combination of all of them, maybe that’s not metaphysically impossible. I don’t know.
I don’t know anything about it.
Yes.
You’re welcome
Maybe. Each one is Shatner, anyhow.
walto,
The split-brain scenario is, at least, realistic but nobody else seemed interested.
Alan Fox,
What split brain scenario are you referring to? Parfit was interested in talking about half-brains, certainly.
walto,
Our two brain hemispheres function almost independently, sharing information only via a narrow bridge of tissue, the corpus callosum. This bridge can fail due to trauma, disease or surgical intervention (to control very severe epilepsy) with the result that there can appear to be two minds in one body, each unaware of the other. Keiths posted here on it as an argument against immaterial souls.
I keep mentioning neuroscientist, Iain McGilchrist who has written at length here on the subject.
SEP details what Walto is referring to:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/#Fis
I still don’t understand how you can justify saying two entities are the same person, namely Kirk. After, they are not the same from a scientific viewpoint, since they have different positions. (I can say that because we are not talking about quantum, entities).
Now I am not saying whether or not they are the “real Kirk” (whatever that means to you). I am just saying I don’t see your reasoning for saying they are.
FWIW, SEP or IEP on personal identity layout the philosophical basis for such a claim.
First of all one has to sufficiently suspend disbelief regarding teleportation devices that can reconstruct humans, then accept or reject that the physical arrangement of atoms in our bodies is all we are. Then let’s assume a slightly different scenario. Kirk goes into the transporter just to check it’s working and is only transported a metre to the left. The malfunction is that original Kirk is left intact and an identical (apart from being a metre to the left) copy of Kirk appears.
So who knows what? Original Kirk knows he is Kirk, has all his memories, experiences, idiosyncrasies and knows the transporter has failed to work because he’s still where he is. Copy Kirk knows he is the real Kirk, has all his memories, experiences idiosyncrasies and knows the transporter has worked because he is now one metre to the left of his original position. Anyone watching would know which was copy and which was original. The most interesting, to me, question is how copy Kirk would cope. In his own head, he is Kirk.
The two identical copies from an original that “disappears” (there’s not a word for what happens to you when you fade from the transporter booth) is more paradoxical, to me. They’d still both be the real Kirk and there would be no way for anyone to choose between them.
Had a quick look. The very simple point I’ve been making is that we are wholly and only physical. As such, there is nothing magical about our structure and how we function. I doubt unravelling details will happen in my lifetime (or maybe, ever if Fox’s conjecture is sound) but we don’t need to invoke the “supernatural” for explanations.
Two physical items in different places cannot be identical, so you must actually be claiming that “the real Kirk” is not a physical thing.
I like psillos’ book. And that’s about as contemporary as I’m ever likely to get.
Some day, perhaps, you’ll come to understand the difference between something having some property and people being able to tell that this thing does or doesn’t have that property. They don’t mean the same thing at all.
The core of the Bible is the prologue of John’s Gospel and the most important verses in that very profound section are 1:9 and 1:14.
The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
(Joh 1:9)
and
And the Word [logos] became flesh and dwelt among us.
(Joh 1:14a)
John’s amazing claim is that the God of Spinoza and Eisenstein and Plato and Aristotle is personal and he chose to reveal himself to us as a man in a dusty out of the way corner of the empire in a unimportant time.
There is a reason that Walto can’t get his head around God being personal. While it’s perfectly logical, It is simply beyond human comprehension.
I’m sure it was difficult for John to understand as well. What made the difference for John was actually coming to know this God.
That is the difference for me as well.
peace
The doctrine of simplicity demands that God is not a concatenation.
To be simple is be entirely with out parts interconnected or otherwise.
peace
What Alan’s perspective does is make reality dependent on his own observations.
peace
“The doctrine of simplicity” is simply nonsense, then. And properties aren’t parts.
According to IEP Divine simplicity is central to the classical Western concept of God.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/
I really respect your opinion but I think you’d give more weight to what your peers think.
from the beginning of the article
Quote
This means God is the divine nature itself and has no accidents (properties that are not necessary) accruing to his nature.
end quote:
peace
I see the distinction. I don’t understand why you think I don’t. Is it something I wrote?
Not universally true, I think. No way to tell for elementary particles.
Could the two entities have the same personal identity because of the transporter malfunction?
The transporter process has been shown to transfer the personal identity to the single reconstruction repeatly. In this particular malfunction two reconstructions were created.