Naturalistic Metaphysic

First off I am Christian (for those who do not know me), but I have a few questions for any naturalistic atheist in regard to their beliefs regarding metaphysics. As best I can tell, according to naturalism, all things are reducible to atoms, (“atom” meant in a purely philosophical sense) and their random movement. I cannot, however, understand how this can be reconciled with universal abstract laws which are themselves irreducible (or so I think). Or put another way, if all is reducible to atoms which are in turn are characterized by random movement, then metaphysically speaking, randomness becomes the ultimate governing principle behind the universe (in which case we could observe that even randomness is not reducible to atoms). Now if randomness is ultimate, that is, if all is characterized by atoms that randomly bounce, then how can there be universal laws? How can there be scientific laws? A law is determined, but a purely random or chance event an undetermined, and a therefore unpredictable event. If randomness is the ultimate governing principle then there should be nothing which is determined and predictable. So is chance ultimate and all laws simply an illusion? Or are there laws and the universe (to include us) a purely deterministic machine, and how is this reconcilable with the current teachings of science?

As a side note, I know the question is setup mainly for naturalists to answer, but anyone is free to give their two cents no matter what their beliefs are. I want this to be more of a discussion than a debate (my current "debate" with a muslim right now is taking up too much of my time, and I probably wouldn't be able to offer adequate responses).

 

Why do Christians always believe the argument is "random movement"?

The movement is PATTENERED. CONTROLLED. PREDICTABLE. It is not random! Any elementary science course will teach you this! The same is equally true of the theory of evolution! Not random!

(Lol, Jesus! )

There are many things that are not reducible to atoms. Think about this: Let's pretend everything are reducible to some almost infintesimally small construct, some types of particles. Whether you want to be macro and say protons and electrons, or be technical and get into charm and strange quarks, fermions, borons, and positrons, it doesn't matter. Let's just call them particles.

Now, each of these particles can be differentiated from the other. That requires that there is a difference between these particles. The problem is, as far as we know, it is impossible to create "mutant" or "random" particles.

For example. We can't create a particle that doesn't already have a defined pattern. We can't create a proton that has a slightly smaller mass ... as protons ALWAYS have a specific mass. The same is true for all particles, whether it's mass, charge, spin, strangeness, whatever you want to say.

This obviously requires some set of rules (which we like to call physics!), which cannot be reduced to particles, because they GOVERN the particles.

The intermolecular strong force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity are all examples of these. Another one might be time (I think of time as a universal force that governs change as opposed to a dimension) depending on your views.

I guess my point is, things appear random, but they are VERY far from random, they are all extremely patterned and structured, and there are indeed nonreducable things about our universe.

The problem here lies within our human inability to understand absolutely everything. Are you familliar with the concept of LaPlace's Demon? This guy LaPlace proposed a demon capable of knowing the position and force of absolutely everything in the universe, and therefor, he was capable of predicting all future events.

Unfortunately, we humans are not such wicked demons. It'd be cool if we were, but we aren't, you know? We aren't know-it-alls, we can't predict everything.

Which reminds me of a saying ... "We have free will, but God is so smart that he already knows what we'll choose." Same concept with LaPlace's demon. We've sort of already made the choice, and yet ... we haven't, to us or anyone else's perspective. This is, in my opinion, the beauty of a deterministic universe.

I am not sure if you'd call me a naturalist or not ...

"Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

"Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation."

I believe myself to fit under both of those definitions, but I have never coined the term "naturalist" to describe myself.

Oh, and, welcome back to the forums Jatom! It's great to have you back!

 

Nice response Hikaru!

 

Hikaru Zero, interesting answers. I definitely wouldn’t call you a naturistist by any means. A naturalist (or physicalist) holds that everything is reducible to physical causes, which are themselves reducible to atoms (again, “atoms” used here in the philosophical sense of the word). But you’ve said that all things are not reducible to atoms, giving the intermolecular strong force, the electromagnetic force, gravity, physics and possibly time, as examples. So from this, I gather that both laws and theories are not reducible to atoms. I would add to that list others like numbers, sets and sets of sets etc., laws of logic, and morals (a prescriptive law, but a law none the less). What you appear to setup here is a substance dualism. That there are those things which are physical and reducible to atoms (say a table or chair), and that there are those things, namely laws and theories, which are wholly other. If all that I’ve said is a correct, albeit simplistic, understanding of your view of things, than I have a few questions for you (and if I haven’t presented a correct presentation of your view, then feel free to correct me). If laws and theories are not reducible to atoms, and are therefore not physical in nature, what are they? Can a law exist anywhere else other than in one’s mind? If not, does this mean that a law wasn’t a law until someone thought it up?

On determinism aka Laplace’s Demon

I believe that for the most part, this type of determinism relies on physicalism because underneath it all it assumes that only event causation is true. At any rate, I believe that if the universe were setup in such a fashion to where Laplace’s Demon could obtain, than no one could ever know that it could obtain. That is, if the determinism implicit in Laplace’s Demon is true--if all that happens is simply the effect of a chain of causes that regress to causes which predate our existence--then there is no reason to think that we can think logically about anything, since even our thinking would be the result of this chain of causes. We couldn’t “know” anything in the philosophical sense, and even if we did, it would be purely by coincidence, and beyond that, we couldn’t know that knew it. As a result we wouldn’t be able to think logically about anything, much less Laplace’s Demon.

...and you mean to tell me that you don't know it all? That comes as a shock to me ;-)

On how us silly Christians get the notion that naturalism reduces the universe to the random movement of atoms

This comes about from our very understanding of what naturalism is. If all is reducible to physical causes, than all is physical in nature. Now, if a law is reducible to atoms, then the law is ontologically depended on that atom or atoms, which means that the law does not govern the atom but that the opposite is true. Therefore the movement of the atom cannot be in accordance with the law, any law (say the law of cause and effect in Laplace’s Demon), and the atom must move, at least from our perspective, in random non-predictable ways.

Your thoughts?

Thanks again for the welcome back!

 

While many naturalists do believe that all things are reducable to atoms (in the philosophical sense), it is not necessarily the case. Quine for example, and this explicitly addresses your problem, is a Platonist regarding universals. All that is entailed by naturalism is the belief that all things are physical, meaning that all things can be known through the natural sciences.

I don't see why atoms must necessarily be characterized by random motion. Unless you're talking about the spin of electrons, which means you have deviated from using the term "atom" in the philosophical sense.

 

I think the problem here is that the "forms" mentioned in Plato are not physical by any mean. In fact, I think there is a metaphysical dualism implicit in Platonic thought.

I guess this comes about because (1) if laws are reducible to atoms then laws cannot govern the atoms and (2) I cannot see how laws are even possible in a purely phyicalist view of things. Therefore, an atoms movement cannot be in accordance with any law (which is predictable and therefore non-random) and movement must be random, from our perspective anyway.

Thanks for the reply

 

Numbers, however, are a concept created by the human mind, the conceptualization of quantity. Quantity is a "byproduct" of the physics of our universe, it shouldn't be considered unreducable, since the idea of quantity stems from the physics of individual differentiation.

And both sets and morals are also human concepts.

Interestingly, this is most likely the part where you and I might get into an argument over whether morals are universal or relative. I say they are relative, and I give the example of differing religions.

Theories are human concepts, and thusly can be reduced to electric pulses within the human brain.

Physical laws ... ARE physical in nature, and that's the thing. They are universal, and apply to every place in our universe. They just don't have properties in our three dimensions.

Also, I was reading recently about superfluids ... substances which appear to overcome the nuclear weak force, and come closer atomically than any solid ever could. It may end up being possible that such forces could be reduced to multidimensional things ... let's let that be a separate argument though.

Anyhow, whether a mind percieves it or not, physical laws do exist outside of our mind. Our minds' existance depends upon the physical laws.

That's far from true, and here's why:

Human logic, and human perspective, is limited, and relative. We are not capable of reasoning out EVERYTHING, but we are capable of logically reasoning out the things which are pertainant to our existance. For example ... I can realize the logic in the statement "if I don't put gas in my car, I can't go anywhere," but if you want to talk about something of which I have no knowledge, like for example ... uh, I don't know, Satanism, then there isn't much I can say or think that is logical.

It all comes down to this ... we are born into the world as creatures of ignorance, a "blank slate" if you will, with basic subconscious behaviours such as breathing, and feeling emotions. But we don't know anything, we're born with hunger and the need to go to the bathroom and such. We can do them, but we don't know what they are. As we grow and interact with things, we learn (learning is one such behaviour we are born with), we percieve the world and compare it, and by making comparisons, we are able to make some sense out of the world. Human logic and knowledge, then, is based on comparisons between perceptions.

Thus, humans themselves are unable to attain what you might call "perfect logic" or "perfect morality," because we don't know everything about everything (which would basically be a prerequisite to attaining anything that is "perfect"). It all ends up being relative, which is yet again one of my arguments for the beauty of a deterministic world.

When did I say that? Hahah.

Naturalism, then, cannot possibly be true. If everything can be reduced to atoms, then what determines what an atom IS? More atoms? You end up with the same problem as the question "Where did God come from?"

There must be SOMETHING that cannot be reduced into a three-dimensional particle form, by the same logic as an object in computer programming (which has a state, identity, and behaviour) cannot exist without having a definition of what an object is.

I suppose it does come down to a sort of dualism, laws versus things, blueprints versus creations, or in computer lingo, classes versus objects.

(Maybe this is why I like being a computer programmer, it's kind of like saying "here, you can make a limited universe by repeating 1's and 0's, now hop to it!")

So to end it, I guess I see naturalism (everything reducable to atoms) as an impossibility, mainly because ... it's paradoxical. The definition of what an atom is cannot then be reduced to atoms.

 

Here’s where I disagree. Numbers are concepts, however they are not created rather they are discovered. If they are simply the creations of man, then they amount to mere opinion, and there would be no sense in saying that someone who insisted that 2 + 2 equaled 5, was wrong. However, the fact that one can be mistaken in their understanding of numbers means that the concept itself is universal, or applies to all men at all times. This means that to say that 2+2 equals 4, is to express a truth about reality. And if it is in fact a truth, then it becomes incorrect to say that the concept was created. Unless of course you take an anti-realist approach?

The same can be said for other concepts as well. For example you mention that “quantity stems from the physics of individual differentiation.” But of course this assumes that there is such a thing as “difference” and that the concept is universal in that all man have an idea of just what “difference” is, that the concept is logically prior, and that they are able of infer from it that they are in fact “different.” Not to mention that they must infer from some other source that the idea of “difference” actual applies to them and other things, that is, that the concept of “differentiation” does in fact apply to the external world in an objective way. And the same can be said of “quantity.”

I’ll have to leave the sets and moral issue alone for now (yeah I know I was the one that brought ’em up). My intention was not to get into lengthy a conversation right now (I already have a stack of replies to answer in another thread).

This was the problem I was trying to point out when I was talking about determinism. Not only are theories reducible to electric pulses but all thought is reducible in such a way as well. And if this is the case, than you don’t think logically because you want to, but rather because your brain was firing in such a way that caused you to. Set aside from that, there is no reason why we should suspect that we are capable of thinking logically at all. Let me quote C.S. Lewis here:

One of the problems we run into with reductive accounts of the mind, is on what basis do we know that the our “logical” way of thinking really applies to the world around us? As Lewis points out, we express the necessarily of a conclusion drawn from, say, a syllogism with words like “must be,” “therefore,” and “since,” but if this way of thinking exist only within a closed system of physical causes--the brain firing in certain way--than what we have in our mind does not constituted knowledge. Rationality requires rational causes. It requires, for example intentionality or “aboutness,” and the person must be able to actual see how a particular argument is cogent --how it follows from--and not just be physically caused by electric pulses to believe it. If such is the case, if one only believes on the basis of a chain of cause and effects , then I believe that what one would have would not constitute knowledge, and he could know nothing about the world except by coincidence.

Physical laws deal with the physical, however they are not physical in nature. I thought you agreed with this when you said that they were not reducible to atoms? So they are reducible to the physical universe, just not to atoms? Our universe is one of particulars and changing things. How can there exist a physical entity which is itself universal and unchanging? Also if the law is physical in nature, what are it’s physical properties? Where can it be found? How big or small is it? What color is it? What does it taste like? (ok maybe not the last one )

Strange, I was actually just reading a little on superfluids about three days ago. Trying to brush up on my scientific knowledge (which I admit is lacking more then it should). As tempted as I would be to get into a discussion on the matter, I really shouldn’t. I would gladly read a discussion between you and anyone else on the matter though.

When you say “human logic” you mean human logic as opposed to what? What exactly is "human" logic? You also speak of perspective. Perspective is, itself, an experience; a 1st person experience which is contrary to the 3rd person observation one is left with in a closed system of physical causes. Now I know you’ve said that naturalism isn’t true, however it seems the only thing holding you back is that laws are not reducible to atoms. However in this current posting you’ve now said that physical laws are physical in nature, so from my perspective now, you are a naturalist. But maybe you are or maybe you aren’t, at any rate, what I what to know is where does this subjective 1st person experiential knowledge come from since it cannot be said to be identical to brain states.

Also the proposition, “if I don’t put gas in my car, I can’t go anywhere,” is an inference made from inductive reasoning, which relies on the law of causation, or the uniformity of nature. A principle which must be excepted as universal in order to work. So while I will agree that the proposition mentioned above may be said to be limited in that only those who know of cars and gas will have knowledge of it, I would have to say that the underlining principles behind the proposition--that is, the logic behind it--is not.

Also, the point I was trying to make in the section of my last post to which the above quote was a response to, was that if the Universe really were set un in such a way to where Laplace’s Demon could obtain, then we could have no knowledge at all. Every thought and action would be reducible to a chain of causes which would ultimately be out of our control. Your position which you thought you held on rational grounds is really just the result of your brain firing in a certain way, which is really the effect of some other cause, and so on perhaps ad infinitum.

Here again, I’ll have to disagree. We cannot come into the world with a blank mind, or tabula rasa, since there are certain principles that cannot be learned by mere observation. One cannot, for example, learn that “A cannot both be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense.” Such a principle of reasoning is a precondition of one being able to learn anything at all…and didn’t we have this discussion before? Anyway, one cannot learn the above law without already knowing it, since if one didn’t know it, everything would reduce to nonsense. Set aside from that, I believe there are other things that are even implicit in your post. For example you say, “As we grow and interact with things, we learn (learning is one such behaviour we are born with), we percieve the world and compare it, and by making comparisons, we are able to make some sense out of the world.” This of course assumes that the child can even perceive and compare things, and that he knows that things can even be compared.

If this is really what you believe, then you should be applauded for yuour brilliance. Although I'm sure a naturalist would say you should be shot for your ignorance. ;-)
Atom in this sense is really just a concept IMO, however, I don’t think that God suffers from the problem you mention. You seem to be alluding to cosmological argument which in which case the answer is implicit in the first proposition, “All that begins to exist must have a cause”

Yeah, but the dualism I was refering to was material vs. immaterial.

All come on! The way you explain it makes it sound so dull and boring! I get this picture in my head of some old factory from the 19th century littered with old Apple IIe and Commodore 64 computers, and dreary-faced people with broken spirits pressing 1’s and 0’s to the rhythmic beat of an old crusty drum! Ah, but I guess I am a bit strange though…

 

By Platonism, all I mean is the view that at least one type of universal exists external to the mind. Quine is a Platonist about numbers because he rejects the popular Humean view that numbers are "relations of ideas," which entails that their existence is contingent upon the mind. If "Platonism" had the implication of positting some transcendental realm like the one Plato actually believed in, then no serious philosopher today could be considered a Platonist.

A law is a generalization of states of affairs. Laws, then, may be considered to be the sum total of a set of Russellian atomic facts. These facts are not things but rather thoughts, in the sense Frege used the word. So, they are free from any sort of metaphysical implications. So, it is nonsense to talk about anything "governing" them.

This matter is really not as complicated as both of are making it out to be. Your problem lies in your conception of the term "atom." I think perhaps you are confusing yourselves by using the same term in more than one sense.

 

Ugh, I had a whole gigantic argument with Kharakov about the logic of numbers. I don't even want to go there again lol.

The ultimate conclusion we came to was that numbers are a creation of the mind, which are based around quantity, which is the thing that is discovered. In other words, numbers are the actual character constructs (things like 2, 3, 4, etc.) and quantity can't be conceptualized by humans without using numbers to represent quantity. Basically, quantity is quantity, and numbers are the result of someone percieving a quantity.

Good argument. Firstly, I want to start by saying that I agree with you and Mr. Lewis on the difference between ultimate reality and the percieved reality that is one's mind.

However, you assert that, simply because our percieved realities are deterministic and caustic, we are unable to gain true knowledge, because the "knowledge" we gain is totally relative.

I have to agree with Lewis here, and not you, simply because, if you read the quote you provided by him, it insinuates that both real knowledge and "fake" knowledge are possible.

We clearly have instances in this world where both real knowledge and "fake" -- shall we call this belief? -- occur.

According to what I learned in a critical thinking course at college, two conditions must happen for someone to truly know something:

(1) The thing must be true.
(2) The person must believe it is true.

That being said, truth is something that is universal ... it applies to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. Truth is, for example, the quantity two plus the quantity two equals the quantity four. This can be demonstrated to anyone by taking two sticks and setting them side by side and counting them (which again involves using numbers, because humans have to conceptualize quantity).

That being said, knowledge can be verified by anyone. Something is BELIEF when it cannot be verified (not that it is necessarily untrue). For example, people believe in the existance of God, but it cannot be verified. Therefore, it cannot be KNOWN, only believed. This is why such sayings as "believe" and "have faith" are common among religious people.

Similarly, theories are just theories until they can be verified as true, theories are beliefs that have a "hint" of knowledge if you will ... they are beliefs that stem from knowledge gained by observation about a topic that can't yet be verified, even though the observations and knowledge from observations can both be verified.

Anyway ... my point is that, you're right, some people claim to "know" things when they aren't actually universally true, and they're stupid and wrong. But, I disagree with you in that, we CAN KNOW things, the things that are universal.

(And just for fun, going back to the moral argument, I say morals are relative. Therefore, I don't believe that someone can rightfully say "I know that this is the right thing to do," et cetera)

It smells like Cartoon Planet! No, haha, but anyway ... you're right, I must have been smoking crack. Anyway ...

Human logic is the logic that is used by a singular perspective (in this case, humans). Human logic is based on perception and comparison. It is not complete, or universal in any manner, it is entirely relative. We all use human logic, but in some cases, human logic coincides with universal logic (for example ... numeric logic versus quantitative logic ... numeric being human, and quantitative being universal, they coincide and reinforce eachother, but there is still a difference).

You're right, I'm not a naturalist, I was just smoking crack. Not literally.

Then we essentially agree. This was my point. Because this can be verified as universal (because it applies to everyone, assuming our concepts of "car" and "gasoline" are the same of course), the logic behind it is universal, and when we put it into words and thoughts, it becomes human logic (which doesn't have to coincide with universal logic), but because it's derived directly from a universal situation that can be verified, it's safe to say that the logic is true on a universal sense.

You argue that what we understand as knowledge is just the result of brain synapses firing, and thus we do not "know" anything, we simply believe it.

Here's the thing ... even though it is true that knowledge is the result of synapses ... these synapses compare the perceptions in a situation. As long as humans are percieving the situation without distortion of the situation (i.e. several people can agree on exactly what happened, which verifies the situation as not distorted), our comparisons can also be held to be universally true.

For example ... I KNOW that computers work on electricity. I've observed it, and it can be verified by another person, and I believe it to be true. You could say that I believe this to be true, and you would be correct. However, because this belief coincides with universal reality, it is not simply belief, it is also KNOWLEDGE.

Just because thoughts and reactions can be reducible to a caustic chain that's out of our control doesn't mean that those thoughts and reactions always portray a distorted reality. As humans, we can verify the lack of distortion by comparing perceptions of the same event between other humans.

So when you came out of the womb, you KNEW that something couldn't be in two places at once? I think that's highly improbable.

Certainly, once we are born, or even while we are developing in the womb, we begin percieving, and those perceptions cause our minds to compare situations, and those comparisons SUGGEST that something can't be in two places at once, we don't KNOW that to be true, mainly because we don't BELIEVE it to be true.

When we are born, we have no beliefs about anything. Therefore, we cannot know anything, because we don't believe it to be true (recall that, in order to know something, it must both be true, and we must believe it).

And while we don't KNOW the law, when we learn it, it will make sense, because we KNOW that we haven't ever observed something in two places at once.

This does assume that the child can percieve and compare things. We are all born with sensory organs that are capable of sensing things, and we are all born with a mind that can recognize and percieve those sensations, and we are all born with a mind that can respond to a perception, whether it's through an instinct (usually called unskilled responses by Buddhists) or a controlled, thought-through reactions (skillful response).

However, a child may not know that things can be compared, until their mind compares something. Just like a child may not know that they can breathe, until they start breathing. These are all behaviours we are born with which aren't known to boot, mechanisms that Nature "provides" us with for survival.

If God doesn't suffer from the problem I mention, perhaps you can answer that question then? Where did God come from?

Either way, perhaps "particle" should be substituted for atom, since atoms can be reduced into smaller particles (quarks for example: a proton is made up of two top quarks and a down quark).

EDIT: Oops, I'm an idiot. There are six types of quarks: Top, bottom, up, down, charm, and strange. Protons are NOT made up of two top quarks and a down quarks, they are made up of two up quarks and a down quark. That's what I meant, but apparently typing this whole thing made me a bit tired in the brain, lol.

Yeah, same thing. Classes vs objects, ideas vs. details, so on ... we ARE talking about the same thing here. We're just phrasing it differently.

Dull and boring! I should challenge you to a duel for insulting my honour as a computer programmer, lol!

But seriously, I'm sure you can see I am not a dreary person with a broken spirit pressing 1's and 0's. Similarly, I am sure your idea of God is not a dreary person with a broken spirit.

 

Common Sense, I actually started typing out a somewhat lengthy response that was going to deal a little with the problem of universals, the nature of universals, Plato’s dualism in relation to universals and modern realist, Russsell’s atomism, Quine’s seemingly confused portrayal of universals, facts and inferences, etc. Then I began thinking about the lengthy discussion that would follow regarding nominalism, realism, logical positivism and the place of universals or abstract entities in human language, general theories of language (at which point I would have shot myself ) etc. etc… At anyrate, I do not have the time to discuss these matters at the moment, but I probably will in the near future. Anyway thanks for your responses. I was actually hoping for more people to join the discussion as well, ah well…

Perhaps. By “atom” I meant the indivisible basic building block. Like saying a image on the monitor is broken up into pixels. I cannot see where I have equivocated on this term, but if feel I have please show me where.

 

Hikaru Zero my man, outstanding post and good points! ...but unfortunately I can't respond to you at the moment. Dang life! Keep the thread open though!

 

Hey no problem, take your time. Since I'm on college break, I have an assload of time to spend contemplating life and physics, lol! You may not have that luxury right now, so take as much time as you need.

I think we're on the same page. "Atom" refers to "the smallest particle in existance." Obviously, atoms are made up of other smaller pieces (like quarks), so it'd be pointless to use "atom" as a stand-in for the smallest particle.

From now on, I move that we should say "particle" instead of "atom." Just to be safe.

 

The 'fact' called racial superiority has come and gone, and the 'fact' that the earth is flat is long dead, facts die all the time. In fact, the unaltered, eternal fact is rare in the extreme. Death, change, and disputes over the 'facts' are three that come to mind.
In my world, truth maybe universal, but it is also individual, truth for each of us is unique. I'm here, no one else can claim that truth without me disagreeing with them. You are there, I cannot truly claim to be, ever.
Different lives, to me, means different truths, all of them valid. Science knows so little, by their own admission, and most things are still unknown, like time, gravity, magnetism, electricity, and the exact value of PI, some examples. The existence of a soul, life after death, deities, and magic are all strongly and validly held as being real to many, maybe even most folk, yet millions of others scoff and declare that in 'fact' they are clearly wrong. Both views are valid, both true, in my world. I cannot tell you what is fact and truth, and you cannot choose for me.
To disagree does not have to mean that one view is right and one is wrong.
If you disagree, I am glad, cuz without different views, conversations would be pretty dull.

 

The thing is, those "facts" as you call them, weren't facts, they were beliefs. They didn't coincide with ultimate reality. This is the "fake" knowledge I was referring to. Even though everyone believed the Earth was flat, it wasn't. Therefore, it wasn't knowledge. But people claimed it was. Some people even claimed to have seen the edge of the world. This is how distorted personal realities can become, which is why verification through observation and pragmatic thinking is necessary if we are ever to truly know things.

Even so, in many situations, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to completely and perfectly verify something as coinciding with reality. A human can never be sure that they know something, but they can definitely know things.

Also, gravity is pretty well known. So is electricity, and the actual value of PI is the same as 4 times the arctangent of 1, or 4arctan(1), sometimes written as 4tan^-1(1).

 

The thing is, those "facts" as you call them, weren't facts, they were beliefs. Even though everyone believed the Earth was flat, it wasn't. Therefore, it wasn't knowledge. Even so, in many situations, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to completely and perfectly verify something as coinciding with reality. A human can never be sure that they know something, but they can definitely know things.
Hikky Z
I agree, they're not 'facts'. But they were accepted, and taught as being so, as are many 'facts' taught today. My uncle, who has an unrestricted electrical qualification, and able to work on any size electrical job, is who told me that things like lightning, sparks, and whether the charge moves from -ve to +ve or not, are all still being studied and debated. Gravity has been defined, measured, and accepted as a force. Its cause, and the mechanics of how it affects things is still, as far as I know, not known. Like whether light is a wave or particle, or whether the universe will contract someday or keep expanding. I know things... a few, but I am convinced they are not otherwise. Others will say I am wrong, but to me, they are 'facts'.
I feel that there are numerous things taught in Universities that are easy disproved. Yet they continue to teach them... which is odd for supposedly objective, scientific institutions. Of course, the expense of rewriting all those textbooks might be the reason...lol

 

my god!! (or non random controlled atom thingy) yall have written a book here

 

"fact" is not a scientific concept but a straw dog with which to attack open and honest inquiry. what, other then over familiarity with religeous dogma, makes anyone think anything HAS to be linearly deterministic?

 

I was pretty tire when I wrote this, so forgive my typos

Ok, I think we may be saying the same thing here. Number such as “1” “I” “i”and “one” are just symbols and representations for a concept of quantity. While I believe that the symbols themselves were created, I don’t think that the concept they represent was created, but discovered.

Not that the knowledge is relative, but that it is based in determinism. That for any given belief, that belief was caused by a prior cause, which was in turn caused by a cause which was prior to it, and so on to the beginning of time. In other words, there would be a chain of causes connected to any belief, and ultimately that this chain of causes would predate your existence, and would be out of your control. But if this is the case, how can it be said that one has made a choice for a rational reason?

If by ‘fake’ knowledge you mean knowledge of a false proposition, such as Jatom is a girl, then I agree. But in that case you don’t really know that Jatom is a girl since I’m not really a girl (…at least not after the surgery I had 2 years ago…j/k). I think what C.S. Lewis means here is that you would not be able to know if the “knowledge” you had was true. If I offer, for example, the classic categorical syllogism:

• All men are mortal
• Socrates was a man
• There Socrates was mortal

We could say that the conclusion must follow given the premises. But what do we mean when we say “must” follow? We mean that the conclusion follows necessary given the premises. So if both premises 1 & 2 happen to be true, then the conclusion is undeniable. Now, I’ll quote Lewis here again:

I think what Lewis is saying here is this: If when we express the certainty of a conclusion by saying things like it “must” follow, we are referring to how things really are in reality, then cool! But if our use of the word “must” only expresses some feeling we get in our minds, then we cannot know if the conclusion that “must follow from” is really true and applies to reality. Which is to say, if the premises 1 & 2 above were true, we would have no way of knowing if the conclusion were true.

You will find no argument from me here. But I will say this just as a thought: If the conceptualize of the quantity two plus the quantity two equals the quantity four, is universal, then it could not have originated in the finite mind of man. And if it is a concept, then it cannot exist anywhere else but a mind. If must exist in a mind, and if it cannot exist in a finite mind, then it must exist in a infinite mind.

I guess whether or not the “God belief” can be verified depends largely on what your principles of verification are. I believe it can be verified.

You’ll have to explain here. I think that almost any belief can be formulated as a universal when given the right qualifiers. I think we’re actually saying the same thing for the most part though. I just wouldn’t call “fake” knowledge, knowledge, while you would. But in reality, I think that we both agree that one is true and the other is false.

Would you believe that a man ought to follow the more reasonable argument? I mean, say I really wanted to eat the grime of my shower door. And you said, “but Tim, you idiot, not only is that disgusting, but you could get really sick!” And then you gave me some health material regarding mold and its negative effects on health. But, dangit, I just really wanted to eat that grime! Would you believe that I ought to go with what I read and not eat it? Or would you think I ought to go right ahead and eat it?

So human logic is relative and subjective? How does it have any real weight in deciding what is true or not?

Wow, this actually went right over my head! You’re going to have to brake it down Scooby style. I think it’s the whole human logic thing I don’t get.

Well I guess you put it that way. But what you believe wouldn’t be your choice. You would be forced to believe what you believe.

But how do you know about this universal reality? Through observations which generates these beliefs right? But on the basis of determinism, all your beliefs would be based in causes that ultimately predate your existence, and were out of your control. If this be the case, then you don’t believe what you believe for any rational reason, but only because you were caused to. Your belief just happens to be the inescapable effect in a long chain of causes. You can say that your belief is confirmed by someone else, but what makes you think that someone else’s confirmation justifies your belief? This is a belief which is based on other beliefs right? But those other beliefs are only the inescapable effect of this long chain of causes too. A chain that is ultimately out of your control. So ultimately all your beliefs, all you thoughts, and all you actions would be affected by this.

Correct, but the problem is that you could never know which beliefs align to reality and which did not.

Well yeah, when I came out I knew that, but that’s only because I’m special

Seriously though, I don’t think I can say. However, I do not think that that is a problem since that only deals with one example of the law. I do think that a baby does think and act in casual relationships (I’m not sure if that ever made sense…all well it’s too early to think). He can associate crying with getting attention, for example. This shows knowledge of causation. That A causes B.

But see, then we have to deal with how this baby learned that things could be compared and results could be drawn. It may seems stupid to ask such a question since we all do this with out even thinking about, but it is a necessary one. Did the baby learn this skill, or is he born with it? If he learned it, then how in the world can he learn that things can be compared and results can be draw, without first comparing things and drawing results?

I think that we are born with some sort of knowledge, because if we were not then I becomes impossible to learn certain things which require that we already know them (like comparing things)

But even if this were the case, it still requires one to be able to draw a conclusion from a set of premises. And this requires that he already know the law of contradiction, since if he didn’t than no premise would have any meaning at all, and no conclusion could be said to follow from any set of premises. Nonsense would result.

Granted

I’ll grant this for now, just so we don’t get into lengthy discussion (I mean you see how long it took me to respond to this one right?)

 

Rationality is subjective, just as the factors leading up to your choice is subjective.

Because logic governs the factors leading up to the choice, and because the person making the choice uses logic in order to choose, it can be considered a rational reason to make the choice.

That doesn't mean that the choice could be made any other way. But it is still a choice that is being made.

Yes, I already explained this.

I said ... "A human can never be sure that they know something, but they can definitely know things."

i.e. We know many things. But we cannot be 100% positive that we know anything. We can only probabilitize our correctness.

Here's the thing: Conceptualization DOES originate in the finite mind of man.

Conceptualization is a product, a result, of universal truths being percieved and interpreted, and categorized. These are all things that are done by finite minds.

Concepts exist only in minds, that I agree with. But concepts are a product of the finite mind's existance, they do originate there.

Individual verification includes subjective evidence as well as objective evidence.

Some subjective evidence cannot be explained by objective evidence. Therefore, how you take that subjective evidence is up to you, and shouldn't be criticized.

Therefore, an individual can be justified in believing in a deity.

But it still cannot be verified on a universal level, and "known." It can only be verified as a belief, because we can never know for certain, because it cannot be verified objectively.

Objective verification = high probability of truth (again, we can never be 100% certain)

Subjective verification = belief

To have knowledge, one must believe something, and it must also be true. But we cannot verify any "truth" as absolute, because we are not absolute; we are relative to perceptions, and perceptions are distorted.

You can't stop people from doing what they want.

Part of the human condition is following emotion, which is irrational. Sometimes, emotion drives us to be contradictory, to rebel, or to conform and be solid, when rationally we can deduce that we should not be.

I would say, you ought to not eat it. And provide reasons.

That doesn't mean that you *absolutely* should *not* eat it. It just means, if you eat it, you should be prepared to accept the consequences (sickness).

It doesn't have absolute weight, but it does have relative weight.

Again, human logic cannot DECIDE what is true or untrue, it can only allow an individual human to DEDUCE what is PROBABLY true or untrue.

Okay.

There exists absolute reality. It contains truth, complete and perfect.

There also exists individual perception. It reflects truth, but is not complete and is not perfect. There exists a certain amount of distortion regarding the reflection of truth within individual perception. This is the human condition; a condition of inability to use the senses (including the "mind sense" that thinks) to verify truth on a absolute scale.

However, truth is often not VERY distorted, and we are able to compare reflections of truth (however clear or distorted they may be), in order to sort out what is probably true (what likely reflects absolute truth accurately).

Does that make sense? Human logic is the result of perception. Perception can be distorted. Therefore, human logic can be distorted, and differs from person to person. What is logical to me may not be logical to you. That is because our perceptions of what is logical do not perfectly emulate absolute, universal logic. But, we use what logic we DO have (perfect or not) to deduce what is PROBABLY absolute and universal.

Here's the trick question: If you are forced to believe something ... does that mean that you believe it any less? If you are compelled to choose something ... is it no longer a choice?

If you are thrown into a world that experiences time linearly, even if you don't want it to ... does that mean that time is any less linear, because it is forced?

regarding the statement "I KNOW that computers work on electricity."

I should not have said that. I am *virtually entirely certain* that computers work on electricity. It's not *necessarily* knowledge. Rather, it's a high probability of knowledge. Extremely high. Greater than 99.999% chance of being true.

Even though human logic is not always a precise reflection of reality ... that does not mean it is never accurate.

Perception lacks precision ... we can never be SURE, we can only be probable.

Even so ... it's like throwing darts. You might be good enough to limit your throws to within 1 inch of the core. That doesn't mean it will always hit the core. Sometimes, it won't hit the core. Sometimes, it *will* hit the core.

Human logic is derived from perceptions. Perceptions are often accurate, sometimes not. Because of this, human logic is OFTEN accurate, but sometimes not. So, you simply figure out what is accurate and what is not, and that will allow you to be more precise in validating your beliefs, in seeing if they coorespond with the state of reality.

Yes.

But baby can never be SURE that A causes B.

But if A causes B enough times ...

Baby can be relatively certain ...

Maybe when baby grows up, and experiences A causing B enough times, and never experiences B causing A, baby can say, with near-certainty, that A causes B.

Perception is something you are born with. Because of this, human logic is also something you are born with.

When you are born, you do not have any certainty about anything. But, as you grow, and experience, you can gain certainty.

Using logic to DRAW results and become more certain, is a skill. You are not born with the skill of logic, but you are born with a disposition to use logic. And when one first starts using logic, they are unskilled, but eventually become skilled, because logic *usually* coincides with reality.

We are born with, not knowledge, but instinct; a predisposition to use skills, even if we are not skilled at all.

Kind of like, we are born with the instinct to breathe. We start breating when we are born. We totally suck at it at first, so the doctor sometimes has to give us a smack on the ass to make us cry (another instinct). That crying causes us to breathe better. Then, throughout life, we observe crying produces deeper breathing. So we try to deduce why it produces deeper breathing. If we are successful at doing this, we can learn to control deeper breathing, and breathe deeper whenever we want to. THIS is skill.

Such skills are learned, but we are born with a disposition to use skills that we don't have (and by using skills that we don't have, we observe how to gain more skill).

Again ... it is a predisposition.

We try to draw a conclusion from a set of premises. If that conclusion is wrong, we're going to observe it being wrong, and we're going to go "wtf" and then reexamine the conclusion.

Perhaps some of the base conclusions we form are more of a "hit or miss" setup, until we find SOMETHING that is concrete enough to coincide with reality in most if not all cases. When we do find it, and when it does work out, we can use that as a foundation to base further conclusions.

Your point here can be argued rationally, I think.

Oh, computer programmers use much bigger swords than that ... flaming swords of logic!