Language and Logic (General)
Over the last two or three weeks, the discussions on the Big Bang, free will and emergence have thrown up some interesting examples of how we use language to establish seemingly logical patterns which on closer inspection turn out to be nothing of the sort. Here are three examples of what I see as logic twisted by language. I should preface this by saying I do not believe for one minute that any of them are deliberate. George argues that the universe is "everything", the beginning of the universe was the beginning of everything, everything must include time, and therefore there was no "before". Even David has agreed that time began with the universe, but he also believes in a "before", which George understandably claims is illogical. It is illogical if we accept George's starting point. He thinks his argument is based on the facts we "know", but if we accept the argument that we do not "know" of any effects that don't have a cause (see Romansh on the subject of free will), we can invert George's logic. The universe cannot have come into being without a cause, therefore if the universe had a beginning, the universe cannot be "everything". The cause must have existed before, and therefore the beginning of the universe cannot have been the beginning of time. David's dilemma disappears, and instead George is forced to argue that the beginning of the universe had no cause, which David in turn understandably claims is illogical.-The second example: Romansh asked me why a lack of free will should not be taken as the default position, and I suggested that if people believed that nothing they did was their responsibility, society would be pretty chaotic. His response included the following: "The sun is responsible for hurricanes. Do you wish to argue against this?" I'm sure Romansh believes this to be a valid point. However, the word has different meanings according to its context. When we say Mr X is responsible for his actions, it means we think he has made a deliberate choice to act that way. (I am talking about meaning now, not about whether people have free will.) Conversely, if we say he is not responsible for his actions, we mean he is not to blame ... he had no choice. However, if we say the sun is responsible for hurricanes, we mean the sun is the cause. We do not mean it made a deliberate choice. And so if we wanted the word "responsible" to mean having a deliberate choice, we would have to say the sun is NOT responsible for hurricanes! By changing the context, Romansh has changed the meaning of the word, and has tried to use the different meaning to discredit the idea of free will.-In our discussion on free will, Romansh agrees that his definition ("the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe") makes the concept logically impossible or at least incoherent, since neither we nor our choices could exist independently of the universe. In his admirably honest article on the subject, he writes: "...just because I cannot see a mechanism for free will, it does not mean, free will does not exist." A few lines later, he writes: "I can't help wondering if it is the definition of free will that I have chosen that makes free will difficult to defend." The point of definitions is to establish a consensus as to the meaning of a term or concept, and then people can argue as to whether that concept is possible. Romansh's choice of words in his definition creates an inescapable logical trap. However,if the definition is neutral (e.g. along the lines of "free will means the conscious ability to control the decision-making process"), Romansh can set out all the reasons why he thinks we do NOT have this ability, while the libertarian can argue the opposite. The point here is the same as before: language creates its own logic. In this case, Romansh seems to have been aware of it, but perhaps allowed his beliefs to influence his choice of words in his definition.-Something similar has happened in the discussion on emergence, but that has now gone off at so many tangents that I'll stick to these three examples! Let me repeat that I'm not saying these distortions are deliberate, and if you disagree with me, then of course you will say so, but I do feel that in some of our discussions, our use of language creates its own logical pitfalls.
Language and Logic
by romansh 
, Wednesday, April 02, 2014, 02:58 (3887 days ago) @ dhw
... three examples of what I see as logic twisted by language. I should preface this by saying I do not believe for one minute that any of them are deliberate.-I understand what you say ... it is not just logic that is twisted by language, but also misunderstanding also twists logic. And let me reflect dhw's statement, I don't think anyone is deliberately misunderstanding. In fact that would be a contradiction in terms.-But I take what you say dhw to heart. I suspect we ultimately speak/think in metaphors. -Take the sun being responsible for hurricanes ... I don't think anyone would seriously doubt that or be against such a concept (except for the likes of Pat Robertson). Now obviously there are contributing factors ... eg rotation of the Earth atmospheric composition etc. -We can see responsibility of people in a similar light if we so choose. We can see responsibility in a more magical sense, that takes on a moral aspect. That a person is responsible for their actions that are somehow independent of their environment.-Depending on our education, upbringing and experiences in general we will tend to go with one or the other or perhaps some combination.-Now I think I have expressed myself fairly clearly and logically.-To summarize - a lack of understanding twists logic every bit as much as words do.
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, April 02, 2014, 04:51 (3887 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: But I take what you say dhw to heart. I suspect we ultimately speak/think in metaphors. > -Which is what makes them such powerful teaching tools. :)-> Take the sun being responsible for hurricanes ... I don't think anyone would seriously doubt that or be against such a concept (except for the likes of Pat Robertson). Now obviously there are contributing factors ... eg rotation of the Earth atmospheric composition etc. > -Again you twist the word here. Responsible..responsibility.. response ability.. having the ability or obligation to respond .. also:-
- liable to be called on to answer
- able to answer for one's conduct and obligations
- having the job or duty of dealing with or taking care of something or someone
- able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required
- involving important duties, decisions, etc., that you are trusted to do
-So my question for you is, which of these criteria is fulfilled by the sun? Note that every single definition requires the intelligent ability to respond.-> Romansh: We can see responsibility of people in a similar light if we so choose. We can see responsibility in a more magical sense, that takes on a moral aspect. That a person is responsible for their actions that are somehow independent of their environment. > -Why does moral have to be put on the same playing field as magical? A person IS responsible for their actions. They have the ability to respond, and accountability for the manner in which they choose to respond. While I certainly agree that perceptions and experience will help inform that response, it is possible to override that conditioning with intent.- >Romansh: To summarize - a lack of understanding twists logic every bit as much as words do.-And personal bias or predisposition towards a certain result twists it even further.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Wednesday, April 02, 2014, 05:24 (3887 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Wednesday, April 02, 2014, 05:43
Take the sun being responsible for hurricanes ... I don't think anyone would seriously doubt that or be against such a concept (except for the likes of Pat Robertson). Now obviously there are contributing factors ... eg rotation of the Earth atmospheric composition etc. > > > > Again you twist the word here. Responsible..responsibility.. response ability.. having the ability or obligation to respond .. also: > >
- liable to be called on to answer >
- able to answer for one's conduct and obligations >
- having the job or duty of dealing with or taking care of something or someone >
- able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required >
- involving important duties, decisions, etc., that you are trusted to do >
> > So my question for you is, which of these criteria is fulfilled by the sun? Note that every single definition requires the intelligent ability to respond. Merriam Webster
- a: liable to be called on to answer -
- b (1): liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2): being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident>
-Were you completely unaware of this use of the word responsible Tony?-post script My Concise Oxford gives being the primary cause as the sixth meaning. And gives an example of an electrical short circuit being responsible for a fire.-> > Romansh: We can see responsibility of people in a similar light if we so choose. We can see responsibility in a more magical sense, that takes on a moral aspect. That a person is responsible for their actions that are somehow independent of their environment. > > > > Why does moral have to be put on the same playing field as magical? A person IS responsible for their actions. They have the ability to respond, and accountability for the manner in which they choose to respond. While I certainly agree that perceptions and experience will help inform that response, it is possible to override that conditioning with intent.-If we don't have free will - morality is magical (akin to strong emergence). Or it is a completely made up attribute.-I did not say people can't be held responsible, actually quite the opposite. But in the same sense the sun is responsible for hurricanes. Are you denying the sun is responsible for a good chunk of the weather we get?-> >Romansh: To summarize - a lack of understanding twists logic every bit as much as words do. > > And personal bias or predisposition towards a certain result twists it even further.-Twist away Tony
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, April 02, 2014, 21:28 (3886 days ago) @ romansh
Were you completely unaware of this use of the word responsible Tony? > > post script > My Concise Oxford gives being the primary cause as the sixth meaning. And gives an example of an electrical short circuit being responsible for a fire. > -No, I was not completely unaware of the misuse of the word, and apparently neither are numerous dictionaries. Out of 8 that I checked, only 2 had that listed as a possible meaning. People use the word 'cool' to mean something is good, ok, fun, hip.. that doesn't mean that its the right word or that meaning has any relationship to the actual meaning of the word. Letting the language slip further and further into meaningless abstraction does no one any favors.--> >Tony: Why does moral have to be put on the same playing field as magical? A person IS responsible for their actions. They have the ability to respond, and accountability for the manner in which they choose to respond. While I certainly agree that perceptions and experience will help inform that response, it is possible to override that conditioning with intent. > >Romansh: If we don't have free will - morality is magical (akin to strong emergence). Or it is a completely made up attribute. > -Ah, you were basing it on your assumption that people do not have free will, which I strongly disagree with. -> I did not say people can't be held responsible, actually quite the opposite. But in the same sense the sun is responsible for hurricanes. Are you denying the sun is responsible for a good chunk of the weather we get? > -So, according to your rather confusing world view, should we punish the sun for the deaths of thousands of people, or should we let murders get off scott free without consequence, as, according to you at least, they have the same level of agency? (which is to say none at all)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 02, 2014, 23:07 (3886 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Romansh: Were you completely unaware of this use of the word responsible Tony? > > > > > > My Concise Oxford gives being the primary cause as the sixth meaning. And gives an example of an electrical short circuit being responsible for a fire. > > > > Tony: No, I was not completely unaware of the misuse of the word, and apparently neither are numerous dictionaries. Out of 8 that I checked, only 2 had that listed as a possible meaning.-To step into the discussion, my Webster's Collegiate has it as the second meaning as a primary cause, and the third meaning in my giant unabridged dictionary. So what, it is a standard meaning of the word. I don't believe our discussion should stoop to this level. > > > > >Tony: Why does moral have to be put on the same playing field as magical? A person IS responsible for their actions. They have the ability to respond, and accountability for the manner in which they choose to respond. While I certainly agree that perceptions and experience will help inform that response, it is possible to override that conditioning with intent. > > > >Romansh: If we don't have free will - morality is magical (akin to strong emergence). Or it is a completely made up attribute. > > > > Tony: Ah, you were basing it on your assumption that people do not have free will, which I strongly disagree with. -I'm with the 'free willers'. Romansh is not able to recognize that we must have some apparatus with which to think. and that apparatus is a biochemical machine, under our control but with degrees of separation. We are not under the control of the mechanism we were given. Certainly the biochemicals are not plotting against us, nor do they confuse our thought unless schizophrenic alterations are present. But even that does not argue against clear thought with a normal brain.
Language and Logic
ROMANSH: My Concise Oxford gives being the primary cause as the sixth meaning. And gives an example of an electrical short circuit being responsible for a fire. TONY: No, I was not completely unaware of the misuse of the word, and apparently neither are numerous dictionaries. Out of 8 that I checked, only 2 had that listed as a possible meaning. -I must confess, I'm disappointed at the turn this discussion has taken! I have seven dictionaries here (I tend to buy new ones and keep the old ones) and only one of them omits the meaning of "being the cause". Romansh's example is perfectly normal English. I don't know if this might be a difference between British and American English, though I do have one American dictionary which also gives the above meaning. But it is the following that disturbs me more. ROMANSH: I did not say people can't be held responsible, actually quite the opposite. But in the same sense the sun is responsible for hurricanes. Are you denying the sun is responsible for a good chunk of the weather we get?-TONY: So, according to your rather confusing world view, should we punish the sun for the deaths of thousands of people, or should we let murders get off scott free without consequence, as, according to you at least, they have the same level of agency? (which is to say none at all) -It is Romansh who has pointed out to Tony the double meaning of "responsible" (which Tony, in my view quite wrongly, calls a misuse), and yet it is Romansh who insists on twisting the meaning. This, I fear, is a deliberate case of distortion, since Romansh has obviously studied ALL the dictionary definitions, but then claims that people are to be held responsible IN THE SAME SENSE as the sun. When we say that Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, Romansh knows we mean that he was to blame, he chose to do this, and was perfectly aware of what he was doing. (That does not mean that he had free will ... I am ONLY talking about the meaning of the word "responsible".) But when we say the sun is responsible for certain kinds of weather, we mean it is the cause, and not that it has made a deliberate choice. Of course nobody will deny that the sun is responsible for certain kinds of weather, so what is the point of the question? By claiming the two meanings are the same, Romansh is twisting language into a false logic, which is precisely the error I had hoped we could avoid. Romansh does not need such a tactic to make the case against free will, and since he agreed with much of what I wrote in my first post, I have to say I am deeply disappointed that he has now deliberately resorted to it! I shall have a little sob into my pillow. Good night, folks.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Thursday, April 03, 2014, 02:48 (3886 days ago) @ dhw
By claiming the two meanings are the same, Romansh is twisting language into a false logic, which is precisely the error I had hoped we could avoid. Romansh does not need such a tactic to make the case against free will, and since he agreed with much of what I wrote in my first post, I have to say I am deeply disappointed that he has now deliberately resorted to it! I shall have a little sob into my pillow. Good night, folks.-Nowhere did I claim this dhw, I don't think this.-Now I could use the same language as you and ask, why does dhw choose to twist language. -I can't help wondering if dhw is deliberated distorting what I said. just joking-Can I guggest dhw et al. that instead of accusing one another of distortions we try and understand what each of us are trying to say.-Funnily enough I do understand what you (and Tony) are saying.
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 03, 2014, 05:34 (3886 days ago) @ romansh
By claiming the two meanings are the same, Romansh is twisting language into a false logic, which is precisely the error I had hoped we could avoid. Romansh does not need such a tactic to make the case against free will, and since he agreed with much of what I wrote in my first post, I have to say I am deeply disappointed that he has now deliberately resorted to it! I shall have a little sob into my pillow. Good night, folks. > > Nowhere did I claim this dhw, I don't think this. > ->Romansh...from a previous post: If we don't have free will - morality is magical (akin to strong emergence). Or it is a completely made up attribute.-I did not say people can't be held responsible, actually quite the opposite. But in the same sense the sun is responsible for hurricanes. Are you denying the sun is responsible for a good chunk of the weather we get?- So, you are saying that people and the sun are responsible in the same way. So either they both have agency/free will, or neither of them do. Either they are both accountable for the deaths they cause, or neither is.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Thursday, April 03, 2014, 05:57 (3886 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
To use dhw's Hitler example of him being responsible for the holocaust.-If we believe in a deterministic world (ie one where cause and effect are true) then it is perfectly reasonable to say Hitler was responsible for the holocaust. Or that he caused it.-Of course the more enlightened amongst us can identify many contributing factors or causes.-If there were no sun would there have been a holocaust?-I am not saying we can't hold people accountable for ther actions. I definitely have not said that. But what does change is how we hold them accountable if their actions are a result of cause.-A few centuries ago people put farm animals on trial. Now I am not suggesting we should not people on trial, but we do need to understand the underlying causes for their actions.
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 03, 2014, 06:03 (3886 days ago) @ romansh
To use dhw's Hitler example of him being responsible for the holocaust. > > If we believe in a deterministic world (ie one where cause and effect are true) > then it is perfectly reasonable to say Hitler was responsible for the holocaust. Or that he caused it. > > Of course the more enlightened amongst us can identify many contributing factors or causes. > > If there were no sun would there have been a holocaust? > > I am not saying we can't hold people accountable for ther actions. I definitely have not said that. But what does change is how we hold them accountable if their actions are a result of cause. > > A few centuries ago people put farm animals on trial. Now I am not suggesting we should not people on trial, but we do need to understand the underlying causes for their actions.-Whaaaaaa? WTH does the sun have to do with the holocaust? How are you applying the same level of accountability to an inanimate object that can not even MAKE a decision, whether free will is real or not, and an intelligent creature that can?-No, Hitler is 'responsible' because he, having free will and agency, made a choice to initiate the Holocaust (as the accountable figurehead of a country) and was answerable for it. In other words, he had the ability and the obligation to be held accountable.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Thursday, April 03, 2014, 06:08 (3886 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
If there were no sun would there have been a holocaust? > > Whaaaaaa? WTH does the sun have to do with the holocaust? -Just try answering the question for a moment.
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 03, 2014, 06:12 (3886 days ago) @ romansh
If there were no sun, there would be no life on earth. Whether or not that would have prevented the holocaust would have to depend on whether life could evolve in the same way without the sun. -However,the fact that the sun enabled life to exist was not the cause for the holocaust.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Thursday, April 03, 2014, 06:18 (3886 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: If there were no sun, there would be no life on earth. Whether or not that would have prevented the holocaust would have to depend on whether life could evolve in the same way without the sun. > > However,the fact that the sun enabled life to exist was not the cause for the holocaust.-In the chain of cause and effect the sun does play a role. It was not the proximat cause, but part of a chain of contingent causes. I believe in a first cause. Now why dosn't everyone get back to reasonable discussions that lead somewhere.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Friday, April 04, 2014, 02:41 (3885 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
However,the fact that the sun enabled life to exist was not the cause for the holocaust. What was the cause?
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 04, 2014, 03:55 (3885 days ago) @ romansh
However,the fact that the sun enabled life to exist was not the cause for the holocaust. > What was the cause?-There as not a 'the' cause. There were numerous causes. However, there was one person 'responsible' (answerable), that could have changed the entire course of human history but chose not too. Hitler was the elected rule of the country. He could have, and should have, prevented the holocaust, but he failed in his duty to his people. Instead, he chose to abuse his people, using them in an increasingly insane attempt to gain power, no matter the cost.-See, this is the difference. There can be a tremendous number of causes, but there is always a choice in how those causes are handled. That choice, makes us responsible for the outcomes. -cause + choice = responsibility cause + no choice = automaton/inanimate object
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Thursday, April 03, 2014, 06:06 (3886 days ago) @ romansh
Romannsh: Now I am not suggesting we should not people on trial, but we do need to understand the underlying causes for their actions.-Looking for underlying causes and mitigating circumstances is reasonable in court of law when there is the issue of possible punishment. Those underlying causes do modify the willful reaction of people, by which I am implying their action comes from free will choices, based on their experiences and judgments, unless their brain is sick.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Friday, April 04, 2014, 02:53 (3885 days ago) @ David Turell
Romannsh: Now I am not suggesting we should not people on trial, but we do need to understand the underlying causes for their actions. > > Looking for underlying causes and mitigating circumstances is reasonable in court of law when there is the issue of possible punishment. Those underlying causes do modify the willful reaction of people, by which I am implying their action comes from free will choices, based on their experiences and judgments, unless their brain is sick.-Punishment
eterrent Public safety Re-education-All of which are independent of free will. No need for free will in the law David. You only need that if we are looking to be retributative about punishment.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Friday, April 04, 2014, 06:19 (3885 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh; Punishment: > > Deterrent > Public safety > Re-education > > All of which are independent of free will. No need for free will in the law David. You only need that if we are looking to be retributative about punishment.-Of course punishment is retributative or should be. You are avoiding free will attributes.
Language and Logic
Like the discussion on emergence, this thread has spiralled out of control.-Dhw: By claiming the two meanings are the same, Romansh is twisting language into a false logic, which is precisely the error I had hoped we could avoid. Romansh does not need such a tactic to make the case against free will, and since he agreed with much of what I wrote in my first post, I have to say I am deeply disappointed that he has now deliberately resorted to it! I shall have a little sob into my pillow. Good night, folks. ROMANSH: Nowhere did I claim this dhw, I don't think this. -You are right. I've oversimplified what you have done. You wrote: "I did not say people can't be held responsible, actually quite the opposite. But in the same sense the sun is responsible for hurricanes. Are you denying the sun is responsible for a good chunk of the weather we get?" What is the point of your question, if you are not trying to substitute the causal meaning of "responsible" for the moral meaning? Your question is a way of saying that since we cannot deny that the sun is the cause, it's logical to agree that people can be held responsible "in the same sense" that they are the cause ... not that they have made conscious decisions to act in a certain way (the usual meaning of the word in, say, the Hitler context.) So when you say "quite the opposite" (i.e. you believe people ARE responsible for their actions), you are actually arguing they are (causal meaning) and they are not (moral meaning). Your arguments against free will are clear and sharp, but I'm afraid I can only see this one as an example of language being twisted ambiguously and equivocally to fit belief. You simply do not need this kind of device to make your case, and it only obscures the real issues.-Tony, I hate to cross swords with you since I agree with your objections to Romansh's tactic, but language evolves, and you cannot stop it from doing so. Romansh's Concise Oxford example is an accepted use of the word: an electrical short circuit was responsible for the fire. The floods were responsible for the deaths of over a hundred people (Longman Dic. of Contemporary English). If you reject such examples, you are ignoring the lesson King Canute taught us at the seaside. My objection to Romansh's argument (which actually fits in with your own) is not that this particular use of the word is not English, but that in order to support his belief he is using a meaning valid in one context as if it were valid in another. And I might add that all this is leading us away from the actual subject of free will (despite David's gallant efforts to bring us back), which is one of the dangers of playing with language. My original post has been a miserable failure, as it has engendered precisely the sort of discussion I was trying to prevent!
Language and Logic
by romansh , Friday, April 04, 2014, 03:14 (3885 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Friday, April 04, 2014, 03:44
You are right. I've oversimplified what you have done. Thank you > What is the point of your question, if you are not trying to substitute the causal meaning of "responsible" for the moral meaning? As you point out below ... that is exactly what I was trying to say. Is there any thing devious about this? > Your question is a way of saying that since we cannot deny that the sun is the cause, it's logical to agree that people can be held responsible "in the same sense" that they are the cause ... not that they have made conscious decisions to act in a certain way As you well know I am a consciousness skeptic as well as a free will skeptic. So for me whether it is a supposed conscious choice or not is fairly irrelevant.-To this point I thought my logic and language has been clear. If not can you point out where. -> (the usual meaning of the word in, say, the Hitler context.) So when you say "quite the opposite" (i.e. you believe people ARE responsible for their actions), you are actually arguing they are (causal meaning) and they are not (moral meaning). Yes I agree the usual meaning the sun and people being morally responsible is a nonsense. Having said that I have clearly stated which sense I have been using the word responsible. And you have agreed with me just now.-In return, I have been accused of being intellectually dishonest twisting words etc. (not by you) Interesting.-> Your arguments against free will are clear and sharp, but I'm afraid I can only see this one as an example of language being twisted ambiguously and equivocally to fit belief. You simply do not need this kind of device to make your case, and it only obscures the real issues.-I don't think I have been ambiguous. Take Tony's denial of the use of the word responsible. Is he (in your opinion) deliberately ignoring the simple causal meaning? I find it difficult to comprehend that an educated person would deny so vociferously such a common usage. The first example I gave was from an American dictionary. > My objection to Romansh's argument (which actually fits in with your own) is not that this particular use of the word is not English, but that in order to support his belief he is using a meaning valid in one context as if it were valid in another. -Again I never claimed it was valid in the other sense and nor do I think that. I just happen to suspect the other sense is an illusion.-And dhw in terms logic and language is it a tactict to suggest other people have tacticts?
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 04, 2014, 04:17 (3885 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Friday, April 04, 2014, 04:26
DHW: What is the point of your question, if you are not trying to substitute the causal meaning of "responsible" for the moral meaning? >Romansh:(POINT1!) As you point out below ... that is exactly what I was trying to say. > Is there any thing devious about this?-..........-> >DHW: (the usual meaning of the word in, say, the Hitler context.) So when you say "quite the opposite" (i.e. you believe people ARE responsible for their actions), you are actually arguing they are (causal meaning) and they are not (moral meaning). >Romansh:(POINT2!) Yes I agree the usual meaning the sun and people being morally responsible is a nonsense. (Ignoring definitions that do not fit your idea) Having said that I have clearly stated which sense I have been using the word responsible.(Not until your hand was called on it you didn't) And you have agreed with me just now. (No he didn't. He pointed out how you twisted words by substituting the meanings to fit your own ideology.) > > In return, I have been accused of being intellectually dishonest twisting words etc. (not by you) Interesting. > > >DHW: Your arguments against free will are clear and sharp, but I'm afraid I can only see this one as an example of language being twisted ambiguously and equivocally to fit belief. You simply do not need this kind of device to make your case, and it only obscures the real issues. (See, told you he wasn't agreeing with you) :P -> > Romansh:(Point3!) I don't think I have been ambiguous. (Then why does everyone else think you were?)-> Romansh: Take Tony's denial of the use of the word responsible. Is he (in your opinion) deliberately ignoring the simple causal meaning? I find it difficult to comprehend that an educated person would deny so vociferously such a common usage. The first example I gave was from an American dictionary.-You tried to equate two separate meanings of the same word to fit your ideology. You were not clear in your intent. You made not effort to clarify your position until after you were confronted with the ambiguity. I find it difficult to comprehend that an educated person would deny so vociferously being ambiguous when it was done intentionally by conflating to separate meanings to mean the same thing. > > >DHW: My objection to Romansh's argument (which actually fits in with your own) is not that this particular use of the word is not English, but that in order to support his belief he is using a meaning valid in one context as if it were valid in another. > > Romansh:(POINT4!) Again I never claimed it was valid in the other sense and nor do I think that.-Read points 1-4 in order. You flip flop. You used an argument to make your point and then state that your own point was invalid because of the words you chose to use. This is something that happens quite often, and is one of the reasons I find these discussions to be so darned frustrating. ----Romansh, when I say you are being intellectually dishonest, I mean you are intentionally ignoring things or lying to yourself in order to fit your ideology. Not that you are lying to us. But seriously. Read back through your own comments here, in this on singular post, you contradict yourself, arguing first one way and then another. If, in your original post, you had chosen a better word (such as 'cause', which you frequently use)for both sets, there would have been no confusion about what you meant, and this discussion would not have happened. Even if you had put some little blurb in there that clarified the statement, or if you had clarified on your own after the first mention was made. Any of those things would have been preferable. -When discussing fine points, clarity is something that we should all strive for. I am as guilty of it as you are, on occasion, and DHW/David and others have corrected me, which I appreciate more than I can express. My wrong approach to countering your argument here is just one such example from the last few years.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Friday, April 04, 2014, 17:17 (3884 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Friday, April 04, 2014, 18:00
Romansh:(POINT1!) As you point out below ... that is exactly what I was trying to say. >> dhw you are actually arguing they are (causal meaning) and they are not (moral meaning). Exactly what I meant.-> Romansh:(POINT2!) Yes I agree the usual meaning the sun and people being morally responsible is a nonsense. I think it is a nonsense to hold the sun as morally accountable, and if free will is false people too. But even if free will is true it is a nonsense to hold both the sun and people as morally accountable.-I fail to see the illogic here, and how it is somehow inconsistent with Point 1.-> Romansh:(Point3!) I don't think I have been ambiguous. (Then why does everyone else think you were?) That people have not understood what I have been trying to say does not necessarily mean I have somehow have been ambiguous. Though to be fair it does not rule out that possibility that I have been ambiguous. There are other possibilities of course.-> Romansh:(POINT4!) Again I never claimed it was valid in the other sense and nor do I think that. It is consistent with my arguments above.->> Tony: Read back through your own comments here, in this on singular post, you contradict yourself, arguing first one way and then another. I have done and I don't see any contradiction. >> Tony: You tried to equate two separate meanings of the same word to fit your ideology. You were not clear in your intent. You made not effort to clarify your position until after you were confronted with the ambiguity. -No, I did not. I accept you think that. I find it strange that an educated person such as yourself cannot see the difference between what you experience and what I experience. I am not denying what you experience, I am simply saying it does not match my experience.-And as to conflation ... every time I used the word responsible I carefully stated the context. So how is that conflating the two meanings? I don't particularly believe in a philosophical moral responsibility, so why would I think that a causal responsibility is the same as a moral one? I don't understand.--If I have suggested that you have had any other intentionalities of the negative kind, my apologies. They were unintentional.
Language and Logic
For Romansh-I'd drafted a response to you and Tony before reading your latest, and it is clear that you do not understand why we both believe you have used ambiguity to distort the argument. Let me try once more to explain the problem. Your original statement, which is what we are complaining about, was in isolation. You asked me why lack of free will should not be the default position, and I answered that "if you managed to convince everyone that nothing they do is their responsibility, you might find yourself living in a society that is even more chaotic than the one we live in now." You responded: "This is utter supposition. The sun is responsible for hurricanes. Do you wish to argue against this?" I pointed out that you had tried to substitute the causal meaning that clearly relates to the sun for the conventional moral meaning relating to people, as if the meaning were the same in both contexts. That in my book is ambiguity. As Tony says, it was only when this was pointed out to you that you acknowledged the different meanings, although (to my dismay) you still issued the same "are you denying" challenge to Tony! Sadly, your latest post contains yet another ambiguity: "I think it is a nonsense to hold the sun as morally accountable..." (So, of course, do we all)..."and if free will is false people too (I would certainly agree). But even if free will is true it is a nonsense to hold both the sun and people as morally accountable."-Since nobody would hold the sun as morally accountable, of course it is a nonsense to hold BOTH the sun and people as morally accountable. Most of us would only hold people to be morally accountable. We regard the sun as causally responsible and people as morally responsible (the two meanings you telescoped in your first comment and question). Do you mean that even if free will is true, people are not morally accountable? That would be an interesting topic of discussion, but what then is the point of your saying "BOTH the sun and people..."? I share Tony's frustration, because your use of ambiguity has led to a discussion of your own motives instead of our focusing on the real issues. But if you really cannot see the ambiguities, then let's move on. The subject of what constitutes the self, consciousness and free will deserves a higher level of thought than this.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Saturday, April 05, 2014, 23:29 (3883 days ago) @ dhw
I share Tony's frustration, because your use of ambiguity has led to a discussion of your own motives instead of our focusing on the real issues. But if you really cannot see the ambiguities, then let's move on. The subject of what constitutes the self, consciousness and free will deserves a higher level of thought than this.-Just to be clear ... it is not me that is discussing my motives. It is you Tony and Dave. -Is my position clear to you now dhw?
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 03, 2014, 05:08 (3886 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I must confess, I'm disappointed at the turn this discussion has taken! I have seven dictionaries here (I tend to buy new ones and keep the old ones) and only one of them omits the meaning of "being the cause". Romansh's example is perfectly normal English. I don't know if this might be a difference between British and American English, though I do have one American dictionary which also gives the above meaning. But it is the following that disturbs me more. > -Perfectly normal English is often not compatible with highly specific and nuanced discussions, and you know that as well as I do. I have listened to you and David go round and round on some minuscule nuance of a word for months, so I don't see why you are taking what I said this way. -If this were a generic conversation, and not getting nuanced into some very specific grounds, I would have let the layman's usage of the word, invalid though it truly is, slide without comment. However, you know as well as I do that the word well and truly means 'having the ABILITY and/or obligation to RESPOND'. -As for Romansh's bringing the Sun into it, the sun does not RESPOND to anything. It is a purely causal entity in the context in which it was used, hence the need to point out the etymology and true meaning of the word that was being abused. ->DHW It is Romansh who has pointed out to Tony the double meaning of "responsible" (which Tony, in my view quite wrongly, calls a misuse)..-See Above->Dhw: (cont..), and yet it is Romansh who insists on twisting the meaning. This, I fear, is a deliberate case of distortion, since Romansh has obviously studied ALL the dictionary definitions, but then claims that people are to be held responsible IN THE SAME SENSE as the sun. -Agreed. This is why it was necessary to point out the etymology and root meaning, the original meaning, of the word. Just because a few billion people say 0 is 1 doesn't make it true, it just means there are a few billion people misusing 0 & 1. Languages are subjective to an extent, and they do change over time, but this is a blatant abuse of the word.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Thursday, April 03, 2014, 05:21 (3886 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Take the word momentarily ... growing up in the UK forty years ago it had a very definite meaning ... for a moment. -Today it can mean in a moment. Similarly the for the couple ... alternate and alternative.-While I am a traditionalist and try to use older meanings of the word, I have no problem with someone using a word in a different sense to what I am using so long as it is clear which sense it is being used.-There is no need to accuse anyone of twisting words or having biases. Though for the latter we all do that to some degree.
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 03, 2014, 05:56 (3886 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: While I am a traditionalist and try to use older meanings of the word, I have no problem with someone using a word in a different sense to what I am using so long as it is clear which sense it is being used. > > There is no need to accuse anyone of twisting words or having biases. Though for the latter we all do that to some degree.-There is certainly a time and place for relaxed definitions. But in the context of the discussion we were having, using both definitions is intellectually dishonest, whether you intended it to be or not, and you know it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Thursday, April 03, 2014, 06:00 (3886 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Romansh: While I am a traditionalist and try to use older meanings of the word, I have no problem with someone using a word in a different sense to what I am using so long as it is clear which sense it is being used. > > > > There is no need to accuse anyone of twisting words or having biases. Though for the latter we all do that to some degree. > > There is certainly a time and place for relaxed definitions. But in the context of the discussion we were having, using both definitions is intellectually dishonest, whether you intended it to be or not, and you know it.-Here we go again Tony ... I am being intellectually dishonest now.-I used a word ... I very carefully gave a sense of how I was using it (because I knew it had other senses) and I am being intellectually dishonest?
Language and Logic
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 03, 2014, 06:06 (3886 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: While I am a traditionalist and try to use older meanings of the word, I have no problem with someone using a word in a different sense to what I am using so long as it is clear which sense it is being used. > > > > > > There is no need to accuse anyone of twisting words or having biases. Though for the latter we all do that to some degree. > > > > There is certainly a time and place for relaxed definitions. But in the context of the discussion we were having, using both definitions is intellectually dishonest, whether you intended it to be or not, and you know it. > > Here we go again Tony ... I am being intellectually dishonest now. > > I used a word ... I very carefully gave a sense of how I was using it (because I knew it had other senses) and I am being intellectually dishonest?-Yes. You are. You know full well, by your own statement, that the mechanical definition is only applicable to inanimate objects and you are applying it simultaneously to both animate and inanimate and calling them equal. -I am fairly certain that is a text book case of intellectual dishonesty.- "Intellectual Dishonesty What is meant when one uses this term? Some possible meanings: When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs. Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc."
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Language and Logic
by GateKeeper , Monday, April 07, 2014, 20:50 (3881 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The sun most certainly responds to it surroundings. Gravity, materials, maybe even dark matter. It was formed because of its surroundings.
Language and Logic
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, April 06, 2014, 18:38 (3882 days ago) @ dhw
I seem to have come rather late to this discussion, but will attempt to answer the point addressed to me.-> Over the last two or three weeks, the discussions on the Big Bang, free will and emergence have thrown up some interesting examples of how we use language to establish seemingly logical patterns which on closer inspection turn out to be nothing of the sort. Here are three examples of what I see as logic twisted by language. I should preface this by saying I do not believe for one minute that any of them are deliberate. > > George argues that the universe is "everything", the beginning of the universe was the beginning of everything, everything must include time, and therefore there was no "before". Even David has agreed that time began with the universe, but he also believes in a "before", which George understandably claims is illogical. It is illogical if we accept George's starting point. -Thanks for that!-> He thinks his argument is based on the facts we "know", but if we accept the argument that we do not "know" of any effects that don't have a cause (see Romansh on the subject of free will), we can invert George's logic. -The flaw in this argument is that the very concepts of "cause and effect" cannot be defined without use of the concept of time. By definition a cause precedes an effect and an effect follows a cause in time.-> The universe cannot have come into being without a cause, therefore if the universe had a beginning, the universe cannot be "everything". The cause must have existed before, and therefore the beginning of the universe cannot have been the beginning of time. -I would point our that the idea of "coming into being" also requires the existence of time. Can one talk about the "coming into being" of Time itself without implying that there was Time before Time?-> David's dilemma disappears, and instead George is forced to argue that the beginning of the universe had no cause, which David in turn understandably claims is illogical.-I would say that there can be a "beginning" (t = 0) without there being any preceding activity, just as there can be a North Pole without anything further North. This is perfectly logical.
--
GPJ
Language and Logic
Dhw: [GEORGE]thinks his argument is based on the facts we "know", but if we accept the argument that we do not "know" of any effects that don't have a cause (see Romansh on the subject of free will), we can invert George's logic. -GEORGE: The flaw in this argument is that the very concepts of "cause and effect" cannot be defined without use of the concept of time. By definition a cause precedes an effect and an effect follows a cause in time. Precisely. See the next point.-Dhw: The universe cannot have come into being without a cause, therefore if the universe had a beginning, the universe cannot be "everything". The cause must have existed before, and therefore the beginning of the universe cannot have been the beginning of time. GEORGE: I would point out that the idea of "coming into being" also requires the existence of time. Can one talk about the "coming into being" of Time itself without implying that there was Time before Time? No, but the problem here is your basic assumption that the beginning of our universe was the beginning of time and so there could be no "before". You may be right, but that is pure speculation. I am presenting an alternative speculation, which reverses your logic: that it cannot have been the beginning of time, because the universe must have had a CAUSE, and a cause would precede the effect. What facts do you know to support your contention that the universe was the beginning of time, and that 13.7 or so billion years ago the universe sprang from "nothing", which it would have had to do if there was no "before"?-dhw: David's dilemma disappears, and instead George is forced to argue that the beginning of the universe had no cause, which David in turn understandably claims is illogical. GEORGE: I would say that there can be a "beginning" (t = 0) without there being any preceding activity, just as there can be a North Pole without anything further North. This is perfectly logical. The North Pole is not an activity. That a finite piece of matter comes to a finite end, as at the North Pole, is perfectly logical. It has nothing to do with cause and effect, before and after. Can you tell me of anything in existence concerning which it is a known fact that it does not have a cause?
Language and Logic
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, April 07, 2014, 23:05 (3881 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: The universe cannot have come into being without a cause, therefore if the universe had a beginning, the universe cannot be "everything". The cause must have existed before, and therefore the beginning of the universe cannot have been the beginning of time.-But by my definition of universe, the universe IS everything, including time. Therefore the universe cannot have "come into being" by any process requiring time, and so cannot have a cause.-> the problem here is your basic assumption that the beginning of our universe was the beginning of time and so there could be no "before". You may be right, but that is pure speculation. -No it is a logical consequence of my definition of universe. We are talking Language and Logic here.-> I am presenting an alternative speculation, which reverses your logic. -You are changing the assumptions of the argument. You are implying that the universe in your sense is only a part of some larger universe. So presumably that universe is in turn a part of another universe. For you it's Turtles all the way down again!-> What facts do you know to support your contention that /// the universe sprang from "nothing", which it would have had to do if there was no "before"?-It didn't "spring" at all, since there was no time to do so. It just quietly began.-> The North Pole is not an activity. That a finite piece of matter comes to a finite end, as at the North Pole, is perfectly logical. -The North Pole is an analogy or metaphor to illustrate the "Time pole" of the universe where t = 0.-> Can you tell me of anything in existence concerning which it is a known fact that it does not have a cause?-I'm sure lots of things happen without a cause. Isn't it one of the axioms of quantum theory? But if there is a zero of time then it follows BY LOGIC that there can be nothing preceding it and therefore no cause.
--
GPJ
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 00:17 (3881 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> George: It didn't "spring" at all, since there was no time to do so. It just quietly began.-From what? Things happen because of or from something. That is LOGIC. > > > Can you tell me of anything in existence concerning which it is a known fact that it does not have a cause?-> > George; I'm sure lots of things happen without a cause. Isn't it one of the axioms of quantum theory?-No it isn't. Some quantum things come from quantum perturbations. Those QPs are not nothing, but are something.-George: But if there is a zero of time then it follows BY LOGIC that there can be nothing preceding it and therefore no cause.-Time is caused by a sequence of events, as we humans perceived it. If there are no events an entity can exist timelessly, not changing in any way. No change, no time has passed. Our universe is not eternal, but something was.
Language and Logic
George: But if there is a zero of time then it follows BY LOGIC that there can be nothing preceding it and therefore no cause. David: Time is caused by a sequence of events, as we humans perceived it. If there are no events an entity can exist timelessly, not changing in any way. No change, no time has passed. Our universe is not eternal, but something was. There is no logical way around this conclusion. Is time "caused" by events, or are events simply the means by which we humans recognize and measure time, through the sequence of past/before, present/now, future/after? Even if we were all to agree that the big bang marked the first event we think we know of, that is hardly in itself a guarantee that there were no events before it.-However, I'm puzzled by your picture of an entity that does not change in any way and is not associated with any event. Such an entity might just as well not be there! Since I know you are referring to your god, which you call a universal intelligence, are you then telling us that the eternal something may be a mind that never had a single thought for ever and ever until suddenly it created our universe? If it did have a thought, there would have had to be a before-the-thought and an after-the-thought, and according to my logic (and George's), before and after are concepts dependent on time. And so a completely inert, non-thinking, non-producing, unchanging something suddenly becomes active, thinking, producing and all-changing? You have not specified that this is actually what you believe, but I can think of at least three alternatives that seem to me just as logical, if not more so, and that all entail a passage from past to present to future (which is how I would define time): 1) eternally non-conscious active energy, for ever producing matter; 2) eternally conscious energy, for ever producing matter (= a god); 3) eternal unconscious energy producing matter through which consciousness evolves. I must say I have difficulty distinguishing your do-nothing-think-nothing-change-nothing-eventless-timeless something from George's alternative, which is nothing at all until matter somehow (we'd all love to know how) "quietly began" to produce itself.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 21:11 (3879 days ago) @ dhw
> Dhw: Is time "caused" by events, or are events simply the means by which we humans recognize and measure time, through the sequence of past/before, present/now, future/after? Even if we were all to agree that the big bang marked the first event we think we know of, that is hardly in itself a guarantee that there were no events before it.-Yes the big bang was preceded by the universe's origin, but we cannot see taht part of our past currently. The hot bang part occurred after inflation, accrding to current theory and supported by gravity wave results. > > dhw: However, I'm puzzled by your picture of an entity that does not change in any way and is not associated with any event. Such an entity might just as well not be there! Since I know you are referring to your god, which you call a universal intelligence, are you then telling us that the eternal something may be a mind that never had a single thought for ever and ever until suddenly it created our universe? -Again, in your reasoning, you are anthromorphizing whomever God is. I have no idea how a universal mind has thoughts, if it does in our sense of thinking.-> dhw: I can think of at least three alternatives that seem to me just as logical, if not more so, and that all entail a passage from past to present to future (which is how I would define time): 1) eternally non-conscious active energy, for ever producing matter; 2) eternally conscious energy, for ever producing matter (= a god); 3) eternal unconscious energy producing matter through which consciousness evolves. -Most philosophers accept the idea that time and space start together. Spacetime as envisioned by Einstein works, which to me means they must always be combined.I generally accept possibility #2. A timeless energy/mind which produces spacetime as a universe, perhaps one after another through eternity. There is no time between those universes, just energy/mind. I think #1 is an impossibility as matter is organized in too complex a way to just be spewed out in an non-planned and designed way. And #3 is equally unreasonable, for the reason that consciousness relies on a very complex structure in the brain. -I must say I have difficulty distinguishing your do-nothing-think-nothing-change-nothing-eventless-timeless something from George's alternative, which is nothing at all until matter somehow (we'd all love to know how) "quietly began" to produce itself.
Language and Logic
Dhw: However, I'm puzzled by your picture of an entity that does not change in any way and is not associated with any event. Such an entity might just as well not be there! Since I know you are referring to your god, which you call a universal intelligence, are you then telling us that the eternal something may be a mind that never had a single thought for ever and ever until suddenly it created our universe? -DAVID: Again, in your reasoning, you are anthropomorphizing whomever God is. I have no idea how a universal mind has thoughts, if it does in our sense of thinking.-And yet over and over again you have provided us with evidence of what you call "design", which you attribute to a "universal intelligence". If you are entitled to use such anthropomorphic terms, why is my assumption that a designing intelligence would be able to think dismissed for being anthropomorphic? And is it really so illogical to assume that a designing intelligence is unlikely to let its designing intelligence do absolutely nothing for eternity until 13.7 billion years ago? -However, there is a change of heart in the next part of your post, in which you favour my second alternative: "eternally conscious energy, for ever producing matter (= a god)," which you rephrase as "a timeless energy/mind which produces spacetime as a universe, perhaps one after another through eternity." But you go on to say: "There is no time between those universes, just/energy mind." In an earlier post you wrote that time was caused by events, and I asked if events were not simply the means by which we humans recognize and measure time. Either way, I don't see how you can classify the production of a universe as anything but an event, in which case ... even though humans were not around ... the same criteria would apply. If your God was not a total non-entity, it is perfectly feasible according to your own arguments that there may have been events and time before earthtime.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 19:58 (3878 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: And is it really so illogical to assume that a designing intelligence is unlikely to let its designing intelligence do absolutely nothing for eternity until 13.7 billion years ago? -No, I have said in some recednt entry that we may have this energy/mind (God) producing one universe after another. > > dhw: Either way, I don't see how you can classify the production of a universe as anything but an event, in which case ... even though humans were not around ... the same criteria would apply. If your God was not a total non-entity, it is perfectly feasible according to your own arguments that there may have been events and time before earthtime.-Of course, I agree. But not time in our sense of following time by seeing subsequent events.
Language and Logic
GEORGE: But by my definition of universe, the universe IS everything, including time. Therefore the universe cannot have "come into being" by any process requiring time, and so cannot have a cause. That depends on whether your definition is correct.-Dhw: ...the problem here is your basic assumption that the beginning of our universe was the beginning of time and so there could be no "before". You may be right, but that is pure speculation. GEORGE: No it is a logical consequence of my definition of universe. We are talking Language and Logic here.-Indeed, and that is why I started this thread. Your definition provides a logical case for there being no preceding cause. Here is a different definition: "The aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space" (Collins). This is far more neutral and allows for the question "How did it come into existence?" You have used language ("the universe IS everything, including time") to exclude such a question. Dhw: I am presenting an alternative speculation, which reverses your logic. GEORGE: You are changing the assumptions of the argument. You are implying that the universe in your sense is only a part of some larger universe. So presumably that universe is in turn a part of another universe. For you it's Turtles all the way down again!-I'm not implying anything, though that is one possibility. I'm pointing out that your speculation (there is no "before") is no more valid (or invalid) than the speculation that there was a "before". What that "before" consisted of will be the subject of further speculations (e.g. David's God, earlier universes, energy doing nothing, energy doing something).-Dhw: The North Pole is not an activity. That a finite piece of matter comes to a finite end, as at the North Pole, is perfectly logical. GEORGE: The North Pole is an analogy or metaphor to illustrate the "Time pole" of the universe where t = 0.-Sounds scientific, but as an analogy its validity depends entirely on your questionable definition of the universe.-Dhw: Can you tell me of anything in existence concerning which it is a known fact that it does not have a cause? GEORGE: I'm sure lots of things happen without a cause. Isn't it one of the axioms of quantum theory? But if there is a zero of time then it follows BY LOGIC that there can be nothing preceding it and therefore no cause.-"If" is the operative word. Similarly, if the universe had a cause, it follows BY LOGIC that there must have been something before the universe. In both cases, language is being used to create its own seemingly convincing logic, disguising the fact that the basic premise is pure speculation based on no known facts.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 16:13 (3880 days ago) @ dhw
> Dhw: Can you tell me of anything in existence concerning which it is a known fact that it does not have a cause? > GEORGE: I'm sure lots of things happen without a cause. Isn't it one of the axioms of quantum theory? But if there is a zero of time then it follows BY LOGIC that there can be nothing preceding it and therefore no cause. > > dhw: "If" is the operative word. Similarly, if the universe had a cause, it follows BY LOGIC that there must have been something before the universe. In both cases, language is being used to create its own seemingly convincing logic, disguising the fact that the basic premise is pure speculation based on no known facts.-I covered this in the following entry: April 08, 2014, 00:17: - > George; I'm sure lots of things happen without a cause. Isn't it one of the axioms of quantum theory? > David: No it isn't. Some quantum things come from quantum perturbations. Those QPs are not nothing, but are something. > George: But if there is a zero of time then it follows BY LOGIC that there can be nothing preceding it and therefore no cause. > David: Time is caused by a sequence of events, as we humans perceived it. If there are no events an entity can exist timelessly, not changing in any way. No change, no time has passed. Our universe is not eternal, but something was.-There is no logical way around this conclusion.
Language and Logic
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 19:25 (3880 days ago) @ dhw
I'll just have one more bash of my head against this wall of incomprehension.-I can't understand your objections to the idea of "the universe" being everything there is. -What is the point of calling something a "universe" if it is only part of something larger or that existed before?-Calling that larger universe "eternity" won't wash with me either.-There is still the problem of where that previous universe came from. Sooner or later one must come to the end of one of these universes. The point where the last turtle is standing on nothing. You can't escape this ultimate paradox, no matter how you squirm!
--
GPJ
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 20:10 (3880 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> George: There is still the problem of where that previous universe came from. > Sooner or later one must come to the end of one of these universes. > The point where the last turtle is standing on nothing. > You can't escape this ultimate paradox, > no matter how you squirm!-It depends on the definition of nothing. You cannot get something from a true nothing.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 05:08 (3880 days ago) @ David Turell
It depends on the definition of nothing. You cannot get something from a true nothing.-David, that might be true if we interpret our existence in a seventeenth century interpretation of physics or an even older theology.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 06:20 (3880 days ago) @ romansh
David It depends on the definition of nothing. You cannot get something from a true nothing. > > Romansh: David, that might be true if we interpret our existence in a seventeenth century interpretation of physics or an even older theology.-I don't know where you are. Even in quantum theory, you don't get something from nothing.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 02:58 (3879 days ago) @ David Turell
David It depends on the definition of nothing. You cannot get something from a true nothing. > > > > Romansh: David, that might be true if we interpret our existence in a seventeenth century interpretation of physics or an even older theology. > > I don't know where you are. Even in quantum theory, you don't get something from nothing.-Describe nothing to me.-http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1203
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 03:47 (3879 days ago) @ romansh
David: I don't know where you are. Even in quantum theory, you don't get something from nothing. > > Romansh:Describe nothing to me. > > http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1203-I know Krauss' position and he has been laughed at by a number of philosophers. He thinks getting a universe from a quantum perturbation in a virtual quantum vacuum is something from nothing. A spacetime quantum vacuum with things poppng in and out of our existence is not nothing. Nothing is an absolute void, which I believe has never existed. There has always been something to answer Leibniz' question.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 00:42 (3877 days ago) @ David Turell
I know Krauss' position and he has been laughed at by a number of philosophers. He thinks getting a universe from a quantum perturbation in a virtual quantum vacuum is something from nothing. A spacetime quantum vacuum with things poppng in and out of our existence is not nothing. Nothing is an absolute void, which I believe has never existed. There has always been something to answer Leibniz' question.-Ahh There are philosophers who are knowledgeable about nothing that laugh at Kraus.-OK that is a definite play on words.-But similarly ... my view of god is as valid as yours, GKs or DHWs.-The mistake philosophers make is they entertain metaphysical concepts ... like the nothing that (your) philosophers laugh at. My philosophers would take Kraus's idea with interest.-And this takes me to the question (Simon Blackburn's) I mentioned before ... Why is nothing our default state?-Nothing is an absolute void Ignoring the play on words that is available to me ... a valiant attempt, but a fail in my opinion.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 04:45 (3877 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 05:10
> Romansh: But similarly ... my view of god is as valid as yours, GKs or DHWs.-Of course it is. So? > > Romansh:And this takes me to the question (Simon Blackburn's) I mentioned before ... Why is nothing our default state?-I've said there was always something. We cannot get our universe from a true nothing. Unless you can demonsrate how.-Let me add my philosophers opinions:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/pale_small_sill057841.html-Feser is one of my favorite guys: He always makes sense for me:-http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing
Language and Logic
by romansh , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 15:52 (3876 days ago) @ David Turell
David: I've said there was always something. We cannot get our universe from a true nothing. Unless you can demonsrate how. > > So? When we are talking about true nothings and other metaphysical nonsense, then my opinion, Krause's, yours or those of your favourite philosophers then they are all equally valid or nonsense [take your pick]-If we are talking about a quantum nothing ... I am sorry I will take Krause's over yours anyday.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:16 (3876 days ago) @ romansh
David: I've said there was always something. We cannot get our universe from a true nothing. Unless you can demonsrate how. > > > > So? > Romansh: When we are talking about true nothings and other metaphysical nonsense, then my opinion, Krause's, yours or those of your favourite philosophers then they are all equally valid or nonsense [take your pick] > > If we are talking about a quantum nothing ... I am sorry I will take Krause's over yours anyday.-Krause's quantum nothing is something. I've agreed to that. It is Krause's suggestion that it is really nothing that is nonsense.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:48 (3876 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 17:07
David: I've said there was always something. We cannot get our universe from a true nothing. Unless you can demonsrate how. > > > > > > So? > > Romansh: When we are talking about true nothings and other metaphysical nonsense, then my opinion, Krause's, yours or those of your favourite philosophers then they are all equally valid or nonsense [take your pick] > > > > If we are talking about a quantum nothing ... I am sorry I will take Krause's over yours anyday. > > Krause's quantum nothing is something. I've agreed to that. It is Krause's suggestion that it is really nothing that is nonsense.-So you don't believe in some absolute nothing and neither does Krause?-He defines nothing as some quantum phenomena and you define it as god.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 19:08 (3876 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: So you don't believe in some absolute nothing and neither does Krause? > > He defines nothing as some quantum phenomena and you define it as god.-All I am proposing, and I can't imagine what is in Krause's mind, is that there has never been a true nothing, that some sort of energy must be eternal, because it is impossible to get something from a true nothing. Since the universe has a complex interactive zoo of quantum particles, an intelligence put that together to work to form a universe which supports life. I'm simply working backward from what we know. I think his definition does not take this view into account, because his thinking is that he must maintain an atheist position. By starting with a quantum potentiality, he can use it to perturb his way to this universe, making it all chance, no teleology. My view is I cannot conceive of the result of sentient humans as a chance phenomenon.
Language and Logic
by romansh , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 21:15 (3876 days ago) @ David Turell
All I am proposing, and I can't imagine what is in Krause's mind, Fair enough > is that there has never been a true nothing, that some sort of energy must be eternal, because it is impossible to get something from a true nothing. Since the universe has a complex interactive zoo of quantum particles, an intelligence put that together to work to form a universe which supports life. I'm simply working backward from what we know. I think his definition does not take this view into account, because his thinking is that he must maintain an atheist position. By starting with a quantum potentiality, he can use it to perturb his way to this universe, making it all chance, no teleology. My view is I cannot conceive of the result of sentient humans as a chance phenomenon.-So when we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with god? [For you]-When we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with a quantum event? [For a quantum scientist]
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 21:56 (3876 days ago) @ romansh
All I am proposing, and I can't imagine what is in Krause's mind,-> Romansh: Fair enough-> > is that there has never been a true nothing, that some sort of energy must be eternal, because it is impossible to get something from a true nothing. Since the universe has a complex interactive zoo of quantum particles, an intelligence put that together to work to form a universe which supports life. I'm simply working backward from what we know. I think his definition does not take this view into account, because his thinking is that he must maintain an atheist position. By starting with a quantum potentiality, he can use it to perturb his way to this universe, making it all chance, no teleology. My view is I cannot conceive of the result of sentient humans as a chance phenomenon. > > Romansh: So when we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with god? [For you] > > When we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with a quantum event? [For a quantum scientist]-Fair enough
Language and Logic
by romansh , Sunday, April 13, 2014, 16:23 (3875 days ago) @ David Turell
When we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with a quantum event? [For a quantum scientist] > > Fair enough-So for you ... God is the underlying force/mechanism/energy that is behind all quantum events?-Your general argument for god is that you cannot see how a universe unfolds as it does-Is this not an argument from incredulity?-Wiki and http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Sunday, April 13, 2014, 19:31 (3875 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: So for you ... God is the underlying force/mechanism/energy that is behind all quantum events? > > Your general argument for god is that you cannot see how a universe unfolds as it does > > Is this not an argument from incredulity?-In a sense it is, but the other consideration is the only other alternative is chance, and the impossibly enormous odds of that succeeding to produce our reality directs me to the need for an intelligence. The multiverse, unproveable hysteria strenghtens my view, as it is a theoretical answer to get around the problem chance presents.
Language and Logic
ROMANSH (to David): Your general argument for god is that you cannot see how a universe unfolds as it does Is this not an argument from incredulity? Wiki and http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity-The "incredulity" argument is most frequently used in a derogatory way by atheists (the link example is typical) who don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot. Yes of course the design argument goes together with disbelief in the ability of chance to create the complexities of life and consciousness. And by the same token, when a theist points out that humans have failed to explain, let alone replicate any of these complexities, which suggests that they have been designed by an intelligence even greater than that of humans, the atheist will express his incredulity at the very idea of such a creative, non-human mind. And the incredulous atheist will probably not even realize that if he does succeed in explaining and replicating all these complexities, and duly collects his Nobel Prize, he will only have demonstrated that it requires immense intelligence to do so. Nobody knows the truth. So what is the "incredulity" argument meant to prove?
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Monday, April 14, 2014, 15:23 (3875 days ago) @ dhw
ROMANSH (to David): Your general argument for god is that you cannot see how a universe unfolds as it does > Is this not an argument from incredulity? > Wiki > and > http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity > > dhw: The "incredulity" argument is most frequently used in a derogatory way by atheists (the link example is typical) who don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot. Yes of course the design argument goes together with disbelief in the ability of chance to create the complexities of life and consciousness. And by the same token, when a theist points out that humans have failed to explain, let alone replicate any of these complexities, which suggests that they have been designed by an intelligence even greater than that of humans, the atheist will express his incredulity at the very idea of such a creative, non-human mind. And the incredulous atheist will probably not even realize that if he does succeed in explaining and replicating all these complexities, and duly collects his Nobel Prize, he will only have demonstrated that it requires immense intelligence to do so. Nobody knows the truth. So what is the "incredulity" argument meant to prove?-Yes, the complexity is what makes chance so incredible. As dhw so aptly points out, it is a simple dichotomy of chance vs. design. And simply put, logic tells us the more complexity is found the less chance for chance.
Language and Logic
by GateKeeper , Friday, April 11, 2014, 21:13 (3877 days ago) @ dhw
I think forum discussions will never be enough at the dept you guys seem to go. When I sit with people at a table, we draw lots of diagrams, clarify, and laugh.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 04:48 (3877 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: I think forum discussions will never be enough at the dept you guys seem to go. When I sit with people at a table, we draw lots of diagrams, clarify, and laugh.-Do your discussions really clarify, or just entertain? I'm not being crtical, but I'd like to point that we are really trying to reach some truths. Please try with us.
Language and Logic
by GateKeeper , Tuesday, April 15, 2014, 01:02 (3874 days ago) @ David Turell
I see no evidence that can single out any one conclusion (truth). It is like talking about ware life came from. We can say it started on earth. We can say it started when an impact happened. both are valid.-So we entertain ourselves with the supporting data for each and laugh, with each other, at how cool it is. People that can understand this (first two/three rows of the P.T.) find it fascinating that life was inevitable at the moment of the big bang. And may even be a requirement for this universe.-These truths that seem self evident are elegant in nature. But not easy. By no means easy at all. Describe humanity? what is a "human"? Martin Luther King? Charles Manson? Both? Neither?. -Rom refuses answer a question that predicts if the universe is more likely alive, or more likely not alive. I am not smart enough to seek the truth with that kind of stance. I am grateful David for your honesty. It seems to me that you mean no malice when you state something. And are seeking some answers that are tricky to communicate in the forum format. Good bye. Till we meet again that is.
Language and Logic
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 15, 2014, 05:18 (3874 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: I am grateful David for your honesty. It seems to me that you mean no malice when you state something. And are seeking some answers that are tricky to communicate in the forum format. Good bye. Till we meet again that is.-You are truly a gentleman. Thank you for the time you have given us. We appreciate your views.