4 ms·

The idea that the universe is anything more than physical laws playing out has just as little evidence as religion and the existence of omniscient godly beings.

by lnanek2 13y ago

The idea that the universe is anything more than physical laws playing out has just as little evidence as religion and the existence of omniscient godly beings. It is pretty much based entirely on wishful thinking by people who want to believe free will exists. They have no hard evidence and are basically making up an invisible pink fire breathing dragon just as much as the theists.

dasil003 13y ago
Ah, but why must a physical law be deterministic? The problem here is that we're all human and thus certain things are probably unknowable. You have disdain for someone who makes something up to fill that void, but I have disdain for someone who creates axioms in order to affirm their faith in science as the arbiter of truth. I am agnostic in the viewpoint that philosophy has a lot more to say on the subject than the either the worshiper of religious gods or the worshiper of science.
cscurmudgeon 13y ago
Except that really serious people have given arguments and proofs for the existence of God. Try attacking Godel's ontological argument without contradicting yourself. (This would require a year or more of study of formal logic culminating in quantified modal logic. Sadly, formal logic is something most scientists don't learn.) http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-c... http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/248548/godels-ontological-proof-how-does-it-work http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/248548/godels-ontolo...
- Anderkent 13y ago
  The logic itself might be sound, but it doesn't matter if the assumptions are false, or possibly self contradictory. A false statement implies any other statement.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    Try refuting the assumptions without falling into self contradiction. You are just asserting that the assumptions are false. The assumptions are not beyond debate, but at that same time, they are not trivially false like you claim.
    - Anderkent 13y ago
      It's claimants duty to provide reason for his assumptions. I don't have the time to produce a formal proof right now, but ideas for directions: 1. It's a 'good' property to stop any 'bad' properties from existing (otherwise they're not really 'bad'). A godlike thing exists, and contains all good properties, thus nothing with 'bad' properties can exist. This is either a contradiction with reality if you take reasonable definitions for 'good' and 'bad', or proof that the 'good' and 'bad' in the proof are meaningless, should be replaced by 'X' and 'Y', and then neither of other assumptions is valid (could be X(essential) as well as Y(essential)) 2. A property that is very good might force a property that is slightly bad on its own, and still be good in total. I'd guess this can't be formalized, since good and bad are so fuzzy in the entire proof.
      - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
        >> It's claimants duty to provide reason for his assumptions. Read the literature. Godel and many others have provided volumes supporting it. You wouldn't walk into a physics department and claim that "black holes" are ridiculous right? Your nonchalant dismissal of the assumptions is sort of like a creationist claiming evolution is false because monkeys exist. 1. You have totally misunderstood the proof. 2. Homework: ponder why relativism is self-contradictory :).
- leephillips 13y ago
  No, it just requires understanding something about the nature of mathematics and its relationship with reality. You can't prove the existence of god any more than you can prove the existence of gravity. To make the connection between the math and reality requires interpretation, as Einstein repeatedly pointed out. Gödel's amusing exercise is just a formalization of St. Anselm's, and most of the centuries of criticism of the latter can be applied to the former. In particular, his little proof has three definitions and six special-purpose axioms, and, in addition to all this, depends on a property of goodness or perfection that is only defined implicitly. Naturally, the existence of something that he interprets as "god" falls out as a theorem. Big deal. The nature of mathematics are that the theorems are contained within the axioms. If the axioms are self-evident, and the conclusions are surprising, we have some interesting math. But at least two of Gödel's axioms are not self-evident. Therefore, this "proof" strikes me as a setup, and is not very interesting.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    The same can be said for anything in life. I really hope you wake up everyday praying that the laws of physics hold today because there is no proof that will hold today. If you claim that goodness is artificial/relative/subjective, then you are hilariously self-refuting yourself. :) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#5.9 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#5.9
    - leephillips 13y ago
      Well, you fooled me. I thought you were serious and might know what you were talking about.
      - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
        >I thought you were serious and might know what you were talking about. Thanks for the kind mature words. You are no different from the Christian fundamentalists who accuse that the scientists (including logicians like me) don't know what they are talking about. Sigh. I was being respectful, but you showed your deficiency by attacking my intellect. Thanks for that. I can only point in the right direction. I cannot rectify a highly deficient education (ah, the US).
JackFr 13y ago
And ironically lacking free will they are incapable of believing anything else . . . For me, I consider snarky smugness to be evidence of free will.
nopassrecover 13y ago
Physical laws don't necessarily have to be deterministic.

by lnanek2 13y ago

dasil003 13y ago

Ah, but why must a physical law be deterministic? The problem here is that we're all human and thus certain things are probably unknowable. You have disdain for someone who makes something up to fill that void, but I have disdain for someone who creates axioms in order to affirm their faith in science as the arbiter of truth. I am agnostic in the viewpoint that philosophy has a lot more to say on the subject than the either the worshiper of religious gods or the worshiper of science.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago

Except that really serious people have given arguments and proofs for the existence of God. Try attacking Godel's ontological argument without contradicting yourself. (This would require a year or more of study of formal logic culminating in quantified modal logic. Sadly, formal logic is something most scientists don't learn.) http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-c... http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/248548/godels-ontological-proof-how-does-it-work http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/248548/godels-ontolo...

Anderkent 13y ago
The logic itself might be sound, but it doesn't matter if the assumptions are false, or possibly self contradictory. A false statement implies any other statement.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  Try refuting the assumptions without falling into self contradiction. You are just asserting that the assumptions are false. The assumptions are not beyond debate, but at that same time, they are not trivially false like you claim.
  - Anderkent 13y ago
    It's claimants duty to provide reason for his assumptions. I don't have the time to produce a formal proof right now, but ideas for directions: 1. It's a 'good' property to stop any 'bad' properties from existing (otherwise they're not really 'bad'). A godlike thing exists, and contains all good properties, thus nothing with 'bad' properties can exist. This is either a contradiction with reality if you take reasonable definitions for 'good' and 'bad', or proof that the 'good' and 'bad' in the proof are meaningless, should be replaced by 'X' and 'Y', and then neither of other assumptions is valid (could be X(essential) as well as Y(essential)) 2. A property that is very good might force a property that is slightly bad on its own, and still be good in total. I'd guess this can't be formalized, since good and bad are so fuzzy in the entire proof.
    - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
      >> It's claimants duty to provide reason for his assumptions. Read the literature. Godel and many others have provided volumes supporting it. You wouldn't walk into a physics department and claim that "black holes" are ridiculous right? Your nonchalant dismissal of the assumptions is sort of like a creationist claiming evolution is false because monkeys exist. 1. You have totally misunderstood the proof. 2. Homework: ponder why relativism is self-contradictory :).
leephillips 13y ago
No, it just requires understanding something about the nature of mathematics and its relationship with reality. You can't prove the existence of god any more than you can prove the existence of gravity. To make the connection between the math and reality requires interpretation, as Einstein repeatedly pointed out. Gödel's amusing exercise is just a formalization of St. Anselm's, and most of the centuries of criticism of the latter can be applied to the former. In particular, his little proof has three definitions and six special-purpose axioms, and, in addition to all this, depends on a property of goodness or perfection that is only defined implicitly. Naturally, the existence of something that he interprets as "god" falls out as a theorem. Big deal. The nature of mathematics are that the theorems are contained within the axioms. If the axioms are self-evident, and the conclusions are surprising, we have some interesting math. But at least two of Gödel's axioms are not self-evident. Therefore, this "proof" strikes me as a setup, and is not very interesting.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  The same can be said for anything in life. I really hope you wake up everyday praying that the laws of physics hold today because there is no proof that will hold today. If you claim that goodness is artificial/relative/subjective, then you are hilariously self-refuting yourself. :) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#5.9 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#5.9
  - leephillips 13y ago
    Well, you fooled me. I thought you were serious and might know what you were talking about.
    - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
      >I thought you were serious and might know what you were talking about. Thanks for the kind mature words. You are no different from the Christian fundamentalists who accuse that the scientists (including logicians like me) don't know what they are talking about. Sigh. I was being respectful, but you showed your deficiency by attacking my intellect. Thanks for that. I can only point in the right direction. I cannot rectify a highly deficient education (ah, the US).

JackFr 13y ago

And ironically lacking free will they are incapable of believing anything else . . . For me, I consider snarky smugness to be evidence of free will.

nopassrecover 13y ago

Physical laws don't necessarily have to be deterministic.