Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 04:00pm PT
|
werner obviously hasn't cracked open a journal of theoretical physics. they hardly ever use arabic numerals. mostly, it's letters from the greek alphabet, small letters and capital letters, and they assume you know what they all stand for. accessible my ass.
i had a friend who was burning to get into geoscience. he spent a lot of time in the mountains and had ideas about earthquake mechanics which he wasn't hearing from anyone else. he had a degree in psychology. most of his math was statistics. he would just read everything he could get his hands on about geoscience and skip over the damned formulas. occasionally, he'd have a paper published by a smaller journal. he eventually went back to school under a user-friendly interdisciplinary program, and now i see he's doing planetary research at jpl. job well done, but it was not easy, and he battled for access every inch of the way.
interesting writer, reid. will check her out. i see that her sister was quite a mathematician. often it takes a connection like that. i'm sure i'll get along great with hilbert, the guy who says that mathematicians have more imagination than poets. am i bumping up against a familiar attitude here?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 04:18pm PT
|
Yeah, but if she needed her appendix out, I'm guessing that she would have gone to a doctor rather than to her farm-working son. Pride has nothing to do with it.
So what? When she needed food, she probably went to the farmer son, not a doctor or the President. What is your point?
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 04:41pm PT
|
Thanks Ghost, I tried.
Mad, I guess if she had questions about cosmology and physics she'd come to you?
I think I'm going to Trip Reports.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 04:55pm PT
|
Ed, I think that you and I are on the brink of an actual dialog, so I thank you for that. I will happily take up the points you raised in a few minutes. But first, I think it's important that I say something about the typical tone of discourse on this subject. In that context I can best cast why I find your tone worthy of comment.
It is not my place to apologize for "Christians" everywhere. It would be the height of hubris on my part to think that I could represent them in any way. What I can do is apologize for the strident tone that many Christians have exhibited over the centuries and particularly in the last few decades.
The "new atheism" had itself taken a very strident tone, but I think it merely responds to the galling stridency exhibited by so many Christians, particularly in the past few decades. A reaction to the POWER Christianity has traditionally held, coupled with how that POWER has been abused, is appropriate and predictable. For Christians to respond with corresponding stridency is not only counterproductive but indicates a profound insensitivity to the abuses that have spanned centuries!
Atheists are right to indict a "Christianity" that has become much more concerned to "make America right" than to ensure that America is free. Mainstream "Christianity" has certainly appeared to be more concerned with legislating than it has seemed to be with living out its supposed values in the form of helping the downtrodden. It could well be argued that our current welfare state is a reaction on the part of decent people to the fact that the church has not done what it is called to do; so people call on their government to do (badly) what the church should have done well!
Stridency begets stridency, and the "debate" escalates, until now it is almost impossible to discuss "science vs. religion" without both sides calling the other side "nutty," or, "dishonest," or even, "wicked." It seems virtually impossible for rational people to disagree on this subject without fundamentally doubting the rationality of the "opponent." Because the "dialog" has devolved into a "war of ideas," both sides have adopted a "take no prisoners" perspective. And, because the laws of the land will reflect the will of the "winners," it becomes critical to WIN!
I blame the legislative-happy right wing for most of this escalation. What the church fails to accomplish by education and appropriate proselytizing, it attempts to accomplish by legislation. Atheism, for example, did not "take prayer out of schools." Atheism RIGHTLY noted that FORMAL prayers to the CHRISTIAN God violate the principle of separation of church and state and impose a particular religion on captive students.
Mainstream Christians have made abortion and homosexual civil rights the battlefield on which they will kill and die; and they are fighting entirely the wrong fight here! I have studied the subject of abortion more thoroughly than the vast majority of people, and I am convinced that neither a Biblical nor philosophical case can be sustained to LEGISLATIVELY oppose at-will abortion. Indeed, even IF a Biblical case could be made (which I don't believe it can), THAT case is purely sectarian and thus opposed to the principle of separation of church and state; consequently, it is invalidated in THIS nation. And Christians are woefully ignorant of the philosophical literature on this subject.
I know that many of my fellow Christians would respond to such statements by saying that I am a heretic of the worst sort, but these are people that have never really thought this subject through. They are riding a little pole-horse off into the sunset, their play-guns bobbing at their sides, completely oblivious to the fact that neither the Bible nor rational argumentation support their perspective. And when I try to educate them about this, they respond with blank stares of utter shock and disbelief.
And homosexual civil rights??? Don't even TRY to go there!
I should hasten to say, because it is easy to Google and find out things about me, that I am NOT speaking as a representative of the Church of God (Seventh Day) in my role as executive director of that denomination. What I am saying now not only does NOT reflect the mainstream views of my denomination, it is vehemently opposed to those views. I am speaking here only as an individual person, as is my right under the law. But I explicitly disclaim any representation of my denomination.
It deeply saddens me to see MY people, Christians, grow defensive and reactionary. They try to accomplish with bluster and legislation what they cannot accomplish by genuinely convincing people. On the one hand the "liberals" stupidly and ignorantly capitulate to the claims of science by so relativizing the Bible that the gospel itself is left vapid and powerless. On the other hand the "conservatives" eschew scientific understanding because they are helpless to integrate it into a comprehensive world-view; thus they retreat to a "blind" and ignorant "faith," falsely so called, for it is the worst species of dogmatism.
I have tried to be careful and sensitive in my discussions, avoiding stridency. Yet, as I look back at what I have written even in this very thread, I can see how some of my own comments could be taken as "strident." That has not been my intention! Discourse on this subject is emotionally charged, and the media has done the discussion no service, emphasizing as it does the most polarizing verbiage and the most "drive-by shooting" sound bites. So, even when somebody is TRYING to be civil and careful, straightforward statements resonate against that backdrop and echo with stridency. So, please take this as my most fervent statement of intention.
I do not respect the tactics employed by many on the taco, but there are those here that I do respect, and with those I do wish to have a respectful and civil dialog.
I do not believe that "convincing" is likely on either side. The ones I most respect here, including myself, have a long intellectual history grounding a world view that will not be easily disassembled and remade into another image. What I hope for is that both sides can deescalate the rhetoric and get rid of the "They are just nutty" perspective that has been the norm in the "war of ideas."
On the taco, the prevailing weight of opinion is clearly that of atheism or at least a very vocal agnosticism. So, I realize that I argue in the minority. All I hope to accomplish is to make a reasonable Christianity seem "less nutty" than it has too often made itself seem.
I am honestly sorry for the way Christianity has publicly responded to Darwinism and secularization! It is appalling to me that there is so little real POWER in the lives of "Christians," that their religion has become a chain of self-deluded excuses for their lack of victory and the genuine conversion that would have produced mighty works of mercy and tolerance in the world.
My Lord was known for His love, mercy, tolerance, and care of the poor and sick. Today, "my people" are known for almost none of these things! They are instead known for sexual scandals, picket lines, the murders of doctors, hatred of homosexuals, repressive legislation, and the list goes on and on.
To be fair, the media has chosen what to emphasize, and the stories are often not a reflection of mainstream Christian perspectives. But, that said, there can be no denying that mainstream Christians WANT to see legislation accomplish in the world what they have failed to accomplish by legitimate means: education and legitimate proselytizing in a spirit of intellectual honesty.
Christians dumbly think that they can legislate morality. It is impossible. The sort of morality that God acknowledges springs from a converted heart and cannot be produced by legislation. We do NOT live in a theocracy! So, the sick idea that "God frowns on America" because of the abortion and homosexuality in its midst utterly fails to recognize what God actually looks for in people: a genuinely transformed heart, and THAT cannot be produced by legislation. God has blessed America, not because it has been so "right," but because it has been so FREE.
So, now I have publicly offended my Christian brethren, AND I am still opposed to atheism. I live much of my life in a sort of intellectual no-man's land. I'm not trying to glean sympathy. But I am trying to say that I pay a price for the ideas I hold. So, please at least don't be blithely dismissive of the perspectives I try to share. They are at least uncommon, and thus good for at least entertainment value.
Nevertheless, I hold onto HOPE that Christians will come to realize the sickness they have contributed to the public discussions and how misguided they have been in their perspectives and priorities. I HOPE that atheists will realize that not all Christians are mindless, stupid, ignorant, "blind faith" idiots. I believe that an intellectually defensible, even compelling, case can be made for conservative Christianity. That case will not likely be made in a venue like this, just given the nature of of the venue, as it is a cumulative-case argument of some complexity. But it is possible to trot out bits and pieces of that case in such a way that a few points can perhaps find some sympathy among intellectuals. Again, I don't hope to convince. But I have found that level of sympathy among the secular scientists and philosophers with whom I regularly talked over the years. Sadly, I am more at home among such people than I am among almost all of the Christians I know.
So, I understand that antipathy that exists against mainstream Christianity. I SHARE it. But unlike most on the taco, I live within a belief system that acknowledges the radical failings of Christians while at the same time finding Christianity itself to be intellectually respectable and satisfying. It is against that backdrop that I thank you for your civility, Ed.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 04:56pm PT
|
Actually, Ed, I have a Ph.D. in analytical philosophy, from UC Santa Barbara. Analytical philosophy is a VERY different thing from what HFCS always indicts: "Let's read some Plato and discuss." Analytical philosophy is grounding in logic, and I have actually been "rigorously" trained in mathematical logic. In fact, I scored the second highest score EVER in the advanced logic course at UCSB. Wow... For someone with such a pedigree, it is laughable at how many logical fallacies you throw out there... Even the above seems to strongly lean towards "appeal to authority".
You are not wrinkly, are you? Irons take care of that.
Oh, and thanx for confirming my prediction about you... Shows that the theory has some explanatory power, doesn't it? I knew you would evade the simple questions made to falsify your belief in the accuracy of the Bible. A lot gocan be said about a theory that has preictive power, and having those predictions confirmed.
Instead, you cop-out*, saying you don't take it ALL word for word... So, do you have a secret decoder ring that tells you which is word for word accurate, and which is alegory? I figure you must, as you seem coinvinced that the Earth is young, and God created life ONLY here on Earth, and I'm sure that comes from no other place but the Bible, thus, you take that "word for word".
*cop-out also copˇout
n. Slang
1. A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely.
2. A person who fails to fulfill a commitment or responsibility.
3. An excuse for inaction or evasion.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 04:59pm PT
|
Mad, I guess if she had questions about cosmology and physics she'd come to you?
If she had questions about logic and about the logic of mathematics, which was the context of the questions to which I responded, she would come to me. If that point was not crystal clear, then see ya at the trip reports.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 05:14pm PT
|
Oh, and thanx for confirming my prediction about you... Shows that the theory has some explanatory power, doesn't it? I knew you would evade the simple questions made to falsify your belief in the accuracy of the Bible. A lot gocan be said about a theory that has preictive power, and having those predictions confirmed.
Actually, I DID respond to your question about the accuracy of the Bible. I did not "evade" at all. I told you that in the context of my perspective about Biblical inspiration your examples of "inconsistency" were simply not troubling to me. You have a standard for "accuracy" that I think God and the Bible writers were not striving toward, and that standard is based on an incorrect (although mainstream) "word for word" inspiration model in which God supposedly "dictated" the Bible to "receptive" humans. I don't believe that that is what happened, and my own model of inspiration would predict that there would be "inaccuracies" as you note.
There is no more "answer" possible on my view, and that answer is no "evasion." So, before you pound your chest enough to hurt, slow down and think through a more nuanced view than you are used to seeing. I am NOT your "standard Christian." I DO have MANY possible falsifying events in my religion; but "inaccuracies" as you noted are not among them.
And regarding my supposed "fallacy of appeal to authority," you clearly did a pretty superficial read of Wikipedia on the subject. It was stated on this thread that I lacked formal training in the subject of logic/mathematics, and I simply pointed out that I DO have formal training in those subjects, more than most people. Yet I have never employed PURE appeal to my training as THE REASON why anybody should accept anything I say. Thus, I have not FALLACIOUSLY employed my "authority."
It's tragically clear to me that you reflect the mainstream here on the taco, a large group of people that just love to "get into it" on subjects like this, while you actually don't give a rip to be intellectually honest about the subject. If you cared to be intellectually honest, the most BASIC thing you would exhibit in your discourse is that you would be QUICK to give me those points to which I am obviously and reasonably entitled.
The fact that you don't agree with my Christianity (although, obviously, you don't understand an iota of it), does not entitle you to think that EVERY word I write is ridiculous, idiotic, and fallacious. Even AS a Christian, there are SOME things I clearly get right. You should be quick to acknowledge at least those. When you feel that you MUST find ways to dismiss my EVERY word, you clearly reveal that intellectual honesty is the furthest thing from your mind.
*
EDIT: to address your later-edited posting, you are now asking me to explain exactly WHY I can accept "word for word" some portions of the Bible and not others. And, supposedly, if I do not provide for you a DETAILED analysis of the Bible in this context, at your DEMAND no less, then I am a cop-out? What hubris you have!
I will respond briefly, not because I acknowledge your demand, but because I hope to say something useful for the lurkers there always are on these threads.
I adopt what can best be called a "propositional" model of inspiration. There is no "magic ring" here, any more than it takes a "magic ring to "decode" how we speak to each other every day.
We recognize, indeed depend upon, the idea that propositions can be conveyed by multitudinous different verbiage and in different languages.
For example, I could say: "I had a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch." I could convey the exact same propositional content by saying: "For my mid-day meal, I had two slabs of raised, baked dough surrounding a slab of partially fermented bovine milk that had been solidified in the process of fermentation, such that the whole assembly could be put into a frying pan and 'grilled' until the slabs of baked dough had browned and the solidified bovine milk had melted somewhat." To the everyday hearer, I'm "saying the same thing." I am conveying the "same basic idea." The latter does not provide any additional information over and above the everyday hearing of the former. Both convey the same "propositional content."
I could also convey the same propositional content in a different language. Thus, we note that "sentences" come apart from "propositions." PROPOSITIONS are what sentences convey, and those propositions can be conveyed with wildly different verbiage and in different languages.
You could uncharitably start nit-picking the differences between the two example sentences. For example, you could say, "In the former you said NOTHING about the cheese being bovine! Yet, in the latter you explicitly mentioned this fact! So the two are NOT the same propositional content!" And I would respond that bovine-milk-based cheese, particularly cheddar, is the "standard" in grilled cheese sandwiches, so "that goes without saying." The two sentences STILL convey the same propositional content because they were both ABOUT conveying the same thing. If you want to emphasize that the TYPE of cheese is vastly important, then I would say, "Oh, now you are changing the CONTEXT of the statements. Now you want them to be ABOUT something more than I had intended to convey."
In THAT NEW context, with the different expectation, I could be more specific in the first sentence. I could say, "I had a grilled cheddar cheese sandwich for lunch."
You could then start nit-picking that by "lunch" I imply a "mid day" meal, when actually it turned out that I ate at almost 2pm, and THAT is certainly not "mid day!" So, you could say that I LIED when I used the word "lunch" for such a time of day! But the time of day was NOT what the propositional content WAS ABOUT! If you wish to change the context and start asking about that PARTICULAR time, and thereby make THAT what the propositional content should be ABOUT, I could certainly comply. But such "compliance" is not possible in millennias-old manuscripts! What the propositions were intended to be ABOUT is what they are ABOUT.
Now, against that backdrop, another issue emerges. We often talk "loosely" insofar as we often say more than what the sentence is ABOUT. In other words, the propositional content in MOST sentences of natural languages is surrounded by all sorts of "detritus verbiage."
If a man tells his wife, "I'll be home at 6pm. I'll take the freeway this time," we must ask what he is REALLY saying. Is the propositional content of his sentence LITERALLY: "I WILL take the freeway, so I WILL be home at 6pm"? Or is the propositional content something MORE like: "I'll be home as soon as I can, planning to make it by 6pm, and I think that the freeway is the best plan to make it home as soon as possible"? How you answer that question will determine the nature of (or the lack of) the following fight between the man and his wife when he gets home at 6:30 to a cold dinner, having NOT taken the freeway at all. We experience this sort of thing constantly in everyday life.
Thus, philosophy introduces the principle of "charity." That principle says that we must be extremely sensitive to the INTENT of ALL discourse, trying to give our "opponent" his/her best case as we interpret what we read or hear, recognizing that our TOP priority is to tease out and understand the ACTUAL, INTENDED propositional content. That "charity" is what I advocate in interpreting the Bible.
When the woman turns to her husband and accuses: "You SAID you would take the freeway, and you didn't. You SAID you would be home at 6pm and you weren't," she is (probably) uncharitably reading what her husband said to her. He could respond, "I got to the freeway, and it was locked up. Looked like an accident had it backed up for miles. So I took surface streets, but so did most everybody else. I TOLD you I would be home as soon as possible. THAT is what I TOLD you, and I WAS home as soon as possible." It would in that event be uncharitable of his wife to respond: "You SAID you would take the freeway. So now I can't believe anything you tell me!"
Look at MOST fights between people, and you will see this basic lack of charity at play.
Indeed, you would realize that people "communicating" with each other at this level had already lost the basic principle of charity such that genuine communication had become impossible. When charity is lost at this level, when people refuse to try to understand what verbiage IS ABOUT, then communication is impossible.
The Bible passages you mentioned contain verbiage that was NOT ABOUT what you make them to be about. The details you mention as "inconsistent" are simply a function of human beings inaccurately recounting minute details of events from (often) decades before. But those details are not what the passages ARE ABOUT, and the accuracy I look for in the Bible concerns its ACTUAL propositional content: what a given passage is ABOUT.
Thus, when the Bible says that in six DAYS (evening and morning) God created the heavens and the earth, I take that to be what those passages are ABOUT; and I recognize that it is impossible to be CLEARER about what is stated. Literally, each of those verses EMPHASIZES the literal, 24-hour period as a DAY just as we now know it. If you were TRYING to say: "I mean, really, a literal, 24-hour day," you couldn't say it more clearly than it is said in those passages. In the original Hebrew, the verbiage is: "Evening was, and morning was: the first day," "Evening was, and morning was: the second day." And so on. The ancient Hebrews reckoned days from sundown to sundown, rather than the much later Roman reckoning of midnight to midnight. So, to the ancient Hebrews, "Evening was, and morning was: day one," COULD NOT be clearer. And conveying the 24-hourness of the DAYS is what those passages are ABOUT. THAT is their sole point.
So, I am not being arbitrary or inconsistent in my Biblical interpretation. In philosophical charity I want to understand THE POINT to a passage and not get bogged down in the "detritus verbiage" that does not contribute to the actual propositional content. Thus, I do not believe in "word for word" accuracy, but only in PROPOSITIONAL ACCURACY. And THIS is actually the standard we hold each other to (or should) in our everyday discourse. The Bible was NOT God "dictating" words to men. The Bible is instead God impressing men with IDEAS, the IDEAS were inspired, and MEN wrote down those IDEAS very accurately. As MEN, they cast those ideas in natural languages.
You can ask WHY God would chose such an "inaccurate" method of inspiration, but that is a huge topic with many tendrils beyond what a forum posting could hope to accomplish. I will not, even upon pain of accusation of "punting," attempt to get into that subject here.
Suffice to say that my interpretational model is not arbitrary nor does it employ any "magic rings." I simply employ the same philosophical charity that I employ in interpreting everything I read and hear. I highly recommend such charity. If you took it seriously, you would find yourself responding to people like me quite differently.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 08:10pm PT
|
Ok, Ed, I've got a bit more time at this moment to respond to your points about empiricism and mathematics.
Let's talk briefly about the Pythagorean Theorem (PT for short). I'm sure you have looked at with understanding, if not outright studied, the proof of the PT, so I am confident that we can be on the same page about our discussion of that proof.
I would assert that the burden of proof is not on me to "prove" that the PT could not be derived empirically, but instead that the burden of proof is upon the empiricist to demonstrate what role empiricism plays in the proof of the PT. I say this because I think you will admit that there is nothing empirical IN the proof of the PT. That proof is entirely abstract and without reference to any "real world" or empirical entities. That fact is the basis of my claim that the proof of the PT is not empirically-derived or ABOUT the empirical world.
It is possible to demonstrate that the proof of the PT could not be empirically-based or derived, but to demonstrate that rigorously would be too involved for this venue. I attempted to offer a very superficial overview of the direction such a demonstration would take by noting how the "entities" to which the PT actually applies are abstract rather than empirical entities, and that the PT actually "applies" to real-world, empirical triangles only crudely. Thus, those crude representations of right triangles could not provide the basis for the PROOF of the PT.
A further point deserving mention is that "proofs" in the strict sense of that word are deductive arguments rather than inductive arguments. Measuring bunches and bunches of real-world, empirical right triangles could not produce a PROOF of the PT because no amount of empirical observation can provide a GUARANTEE of accuracy or correctness. Induction, which is what empirical science does, can only provide some varying degree of probability that a given state of affairs will obtain. There can be no GUARANTEE, which is what deductive proof demands.
So, the proof of the PT is deductive, non-empirical by design, and is thus a genuine PROOF; while the introduction of empirical elements into the argument would render the argument only inductive and thus not a PROOF at all.
To sum up, the proof of the PT is a genuine PROOF, it is deductive and non-empirical. There are no empirical elements or entities mentioned in the proof; the proof is a deduction about abstractions, in Hume's vernacular: a "relation of ideas." And, in Hume's vernacular, "relations of ideas" can tell us nothing about the real world because "relations of ideas" are ABOUT abstractions rather than real-world entities. Thus, on Hume's empiricism, the proof of the PT establishes knowledge about ABSTRACT right triangles, but it is a mystery how that proof can have any application to the real, empirical world.
Now, an empiricist could argue that Hume was incorrect about his "relations of ideas," trying to somehow provide a category that is both abstract and about the real world; but, I have not seen any empiricists attempt that. Hume was nothing if not rigorous! When I call Hume "the greatest of the empiricists," I say that because his analysis of empiricism is the most thorough and rigorous of any empiricist in history. And modern empiricists do not claim that Hume got it all wrong in his distinctions.
So, I think that the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate the empirical elements of the proof of the PT, that I actually think you will agree are nowhere present. I assert that there are none and there CAN be none, because to introduce empiricism into that proof would render it no longer a PROOF. Yet it IS a proof, and the mystery remains to empiricists: explain how this utter abstraction could have ANY (much less a comparatively accurate)relation to real-world, empirical right triangles.
Thanks again for your attitude of civility. I look forward to further discussions on these issues, time permitting!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 08:39pm PT
|
you didn't read Birkhoff...
a proof is a set of propositional statements regarding the relationships of attributes. As you know, these are describable as an algebra, and we refer to these sets of attributes and their relationships as "algebras of logic."
Now certainly the Boolean algebra is the best known, but not the only such algebra. There is a correspondence of Boolean algebras with certain aspects of classical mechanics, now we usually say that we have an "abstract mathematical construction" Boolean algebra, which we use to describe in approximation a measurable physical situation, say classical mechanics.
It is known that quantum mechanics is describable in terms of Clifford algebras, and that, in turn can be used to derive another logical system, to quote Birkoff: "the logic of quantum mechanics is an orthcomplemented modular lattice".
Birkhoff goes on to describe various difficulties with Boolean logic, these are well known and perhaps made popular in Douglas Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, but that's not where I'm going...
What I would posit, is that the logical systems that we use to create our proofs, such as the one for the Pythagorean Theorem, the whole foundation of mathematics, is essentially a manifestation of the properties of the universe, just as space-time may be a consequence of those same properties and not something "in which" the universe is placed. That is, the algebraic relationship of the transformation of states which create the universe, define it, actually generate mathematics too.
It's a totally wild idea, but certainly not something that is beyond the realm of possibility, and certainly within the construction (and the difficulties of that construction) of the fundamental logic of mathematics.
And the consequences of these ideas, which Wheeler referred to as "pre-geometry" are certainly testable empirically. So certainly I can be shown to be wrong...
|
|
Crodog
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 09:15pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 11:28pm PT
|
Ed, I'm familiar with everything you said. But you've got the logical priority reversed. The point is not that there CAN be a symmetry between, for example, non-classical logics and quantum mechanics. The point is to explain WHY there can be such symmetry.
You didn't answer my question. I asked if there is anything empirical in the PT, and you responded by citing a correspondence between, for example Clifford algebras and quantum mechanics: "It is known that quantum mechanics is describable in terms of Clifford algebras." But that response only serves to illustrate my question!
It is also well known that Clifford developed his mathematics, including a very sophisticated non-Euclidean geometry well in advance of any theorized application to physics. In fact, only much later was the correlation recognized, as Clifford is now remembered for having developed an "exercise" in higher dimensions in which he speculated (in utter absence of theory) that gravity might be expressed in terms of dimensionality, an idea the theoretical development of which made Einstein famous.
In short, as history has ever shown, purely abstract mathematics advance far ahead of recognized physical applications. Most recently this is seen in the development of so-called "string theory," in which physicists (according to Kaku and Weinberg; I can provide quotes if desired) had their ideas but were casting about for the mathematics in which to express those ideas, and discovered the desired mathematics in the form of Riemann tensors, developed, I might add, in the mid-1800s!
Physicists often inadvertently get this order reversed. For example, the "official superstring website:" superstringtheory.com, has a section on the mathematics of string theory, and it asks the leading question: "How has string theory changed mathematics?" Dr. Schwarz, the author of the site, spends the next couple of pages telling the reader what sorts of mathematics are involved in the study of string theory, but she never actually answers how string theory is CHANGING the mathematics! Her list of applied mathematics appeals entirely to mathematical developments to as recently as 1947, with most of the developments dating back to the mid-1800s. She gives no answer to her own question, although her question implies that mathematics is developed TO solve physical problems, and even further that mathematics develops IN ORDER TO correlate with empirical evidence. That idea is patently false! So, like other physicists I have read, she unwittingly suggests that physics drives mathematical development, when actually the reverse is closer to the truth (usually mathematics just develops completely isolated from physics, and never the twain meet).
The issue here is not whether or not there IS an amazing harmony between SOME of what we discover about the abstractions that ARE mathematics/geometry. The issue is HOW there is such a harmony.
You SPECULATE something about "the whole foundation of mathematics, is essentially a manifestation of the properties of the universe." But, no disrespect intended, that is so much hand-waving, because, as I said, there is NO apparent empirical foundation to mathematics, logic, or geometry. Our proofs in these fields are ENTIRELY abstract and having exactly zero reference to the empirical realm.
So, I ask again, given that there is zero empirical foundation to logic, mathematics, and geometry, WHY is there such a seemingly miraculous symmetry between these fields and what we seem to be discovering about the empirical realm? "A manifestation" is no answer! That is merely an admission of the fact that there is this question!
The closest thing you suggest to an answer is Wheeler's pregeometry, to which I'll return in just a second.
You see, Christians (although most don't realize it) have a ready answer to this question, and it is NOT a "God of the gaps" answer. By contrast, simply ASSERTING the symmetry and calling it empirical is no ANSWER. The symmetry is not ITSELF empirical, and there is nothing "testable" or even concrete in your speculation of "manifestation".
I appreciated your "positing" and questioning tone, as I find that sort of humility rare among physicists. "I don't have any idea" is often the best and most accurate answer to many questions. What you speculated COULD possibly be the case, perhaps. I don't know, except that the articles I've read on the subject seem like speculative metaphysics rather than physics.
Could you please tell me exactly what would be the nature of empirical tests that could falsify claims like: "In the absence of time there might be the changeless and that in the absence of space there might be the infinite, the undivided, then we are left with the possibility of a pregeometry to provide the Universe with a way to come into being"?
Reading Hawking, Weinberg, Kaku, and many others, I hate to break it to you guys, but you're really doing metaphysics and hoping to get some physical insight from that endeavor. But, as I've indicted Hawking and Weinberg for many times, metaphysics is philosophy, and bad metaphysics often arises from bad philosophical training (among other reasons). If you're going to do PHYSICS grounded in metaphysics, then I need to see the empirical tests.
So, my question remains: show me the empiricism in logic, mathematics, and geometry. Don't refer to any symmetry between them and and the physical realm as an ANSWER, because that symmetry IS the mystery. And I have yet to hear an actually empirically testable approach to the metaphysical speculations that populate the literature. Perhaps you can help me there, because I find this recent stuff fascinating.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2010 - 11:44pm PT
|
re: Pope vs. Hawkings (euphemism for Abrahamic religion vs. science)
The question the 21st century's going to have to deal with insofar as it isn't already - Which is the better narrative to live by. Is it (a) the Scientific Story or (b) Under Jehovah (the Abrahamic narrative). -As a basis for one's practice of living.
Which is more empowering in the practice of living? Which promotes or facilitates "better practices" if not "best practices" in the practice of living? -At all levels, too, at the individual, family, communal levels and on up to the nation and species at large.
Right now it is apparent "Under Jehovah" is the preferred narrative for some (esp ultra conservatives, the ultracons, also my grandmother) while "The Scientific Story" is the preferred narrative - if not compelling narrative - for others (e.g., rebellious science and engineering college students). Hence much of the conflict we see across American culture, public opinion and this election cycle.
Also apparent is a group - we could call them the bicameralists - who go forward in their lives and their "practice" of living embracing - some even pridefully - both narratives.
In time this will sort out one way or another, I think.
.....
So called "culture wars" or "clashes of civilizations" really boil down to clashes of life narratives.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
mathematics is generated by the same things that generate the universe, and I mean it in a physical manner
the logic of mathematics is not something absolute and abstract
so I would posit that although Clifford figured out that algebra before it was known to be applicable to the description of quantum mechanics, that the existence of quantum mechanics generates Clifford algebras...
...invert your way of thinking for a this discussion. It is not a matter of a human mind thinking up the algebra. The algebra is there to be thought of because it is the way the universe works. You yourself said above that there is a surprising relationship between mathematics and physics. It is surprising to you because you haven't thought that mathematics is actually generated physically. If that were so, the relationship would not be at all surprising.
And remember, Newton was both a mathematician and a physicist, he developed mathematics to describe physical phenomena... it's hard to say which came first in his work.
Finally, it was the program of Hilbert at the end of the 19th century into the 20th century that sought to remove all physical examples from proofs of mathematical theorems. That was a step forward for mathematics, but it opened up all sorts of problems in mathematical logic. Which you side step in your representation.
So what is empirical about the proof?
It utilizes a logic algebra that results from the physical nature of the universe
Change the physical nature and you change the logic...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
By the way, Ed, I should say in all sincerity that I have no problem whatsoever with you responding that my questions are not in your area of specialization. I don't consider any given physicist to be "up" on any particular part of physics, any more than I would expect any particular MD to be "up" on any particular part of medicine. Most advanced disciplines are highly specialized, so there is no punt in just saying something like, "It's not my area of specialization, but I have enough history in my field to believe that we're ultimately going to find empirical answers."
I, of course, won't agree that such answers are going to be forthcoming to these ultimate questions, as I don't believe that empiricism is "in its element" in searching for certain sorts of answers. But, as I said, "agreement" isn't my goal here.
I intend to keep studying these issues, as I find them profoundly interesting. Maybe someday I'll be on your side of the divide, and I sincerely mean that. At present, my own history doesn't suggest the pathway over there. But, my views are falsifiable in various ways, and I am honestly open to going where the best (most appropriate) answers are to be found. That said, the human condition will ever be, I believe, one of groping in regard to the ultimate questions. Perhaps that underlying belief is what makes the confidence expressed by leading physicists galling to me.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
this is outside everybody's area of expertise... it is unwritten physics... read Weinberg's quote above...
I totally understand what you are saying madbolter1, I'm just sayin' there are other ways of looking at it...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Change the physical nature and you change the logic.
Our latest posts crossed. But your suggestion that I "invert my thinking" is something that I've done many times. I don't think the inversion works, and I don't see what could motivate such an inversion.
You suggest that I'm not doing this because I am "sidestepping" the "problems" with modern mathematical logic. I am not sidestepping the "problems." Instead, I just don't see the "problems" having the results you seem to think they have.
The primary "problem" you can, I think, be referring to was Frege's and Russel's (among others) efforts to reduce mathematics to logic, an effort that ultimately produced Principia Mathmatica. Then along comes Kurt Godel and throws the "Incompleteness Theorem" monkey wrench into the machine. It turns out that mathematics is NOT "reducible to logic" AND it is not both "complete" in principle and consistent, as everybody thought.
Now, you seem to be saying that this result indicates that at bottom mathematics has the same sorts of "uncertainty" as we see in quantum mechanics; something like that the Incompleteness Theorem is to logic and mathematics what the Uncertainty Principle is to physics. That sort of correlation could motivate the sort of "inversion" in thinking you suggest.
If I'm misunderstanding your point, please correct me. I'm trying to be charitable, as this sort of correlation would be, I think, the strongest case you might make.
I don't think the correlation works, however, for this reason. Godel proved that for sufficiently complex logical/mathematical systems (the Theorem applies to logic as well, and polyadic predicate logic with identity is sufficiently complex; monadic predicate logic with identity is both complete and consistent!) one can have EITHER completeness OR consistency, but one cannot have both. That is indeed a shocking result, but it is widely misunderstood!
Godel did NOT prove that logic as far as we know it, or mathematics as far as we know it, IS in fact inconsistent (as if there ARE theorems that we "hold" but KNOW make no sense). His result is much more subtle than that. What he proved is that we cannot in principle HAVE a "complete" set of theorems, but IF we did, there would be at least one in the mix that could not be proved (or disproved) utilizing the previously proved theorems.
Logic/mathematics is an axiomatic system (grant the conflation for simplicity's sake). It starts with a few axioms that cannot be doubted, because to doubt them one has to employ them. An example is (in sentential form, for simplicity): "If P, then P." If the door is open, then the door is open. From a handful of axioms like this, more and more complicated theorems are derived, until a wildly robust system of logic (and mathematics) can be proved. The entire process is deductive, and Godel was NOT questioning the deductive nature of the proofs.
What Godel discovered is that deduction is IN PRINCIPLE limited: One cannot DEDUCE all of the possible theorems in a sufficiently complex system AND have the previous axiomatic approach be sufficient to the task of proving OR disproving all of the possibly "valid" (although this term breaks down in context) theorems.
The confusion is that people take Godel to be saying all sorts of things he is NOT saying in this context. For example, Godel is NOT saying that axiomatic deduction DOES (for us, actually) result in us being forced to believe absurdity. He is NOT saying that in fact absurdity will stare us in the face, and we will just have to "live with it." He is NOT saying that mathematics and logic are fundamentally absurd!
And that last point is where the correlation with the Uncertainty Principle breaks down. It is NOT true that Godel was suggesting a profound uncertainty in logic and mathematics! This is the most common mistake made about the Incompleteness Theorem. According to Godel, you can choose to impale yourself on EITHER horn of the dichotomy: sufficiently complex systems are EITHER incomplete, OR they are inconsistent (where the 'or' is exclusive). Godel found that you cannot have BOTH a complete and consistent complex logical/mathematical system. But you can have one OR the other.
So, there is absolutely nothing "problematical" with stating, as most logicians do, that modern logic is entirely consistent but incomplete: we will NEVER have a complete set of theorems all of which can be derived validly from the system's axioms. Nothing about this "problem" calls into question the axioms, the process of deduction, or the theorems we already know.
The only correlation between THIS understanding of Godel and the Uncertainly Principle, is that both are epistemological claims: both demonstrate certain limitations upon human knowledge of complex systems. In such systems there are in-principle limitations upon what we can KNOW.
But even this result does not make the point you need it to make. Godel's epistemic "hole" points to a deductive limitation, while Heisenberg's "hole" is an inductive, empirical limitation. One is a limitation in what is in-principle deduce-able, while the other is an in-principle limitation on what is observable.
Nothing about this discussion correlates logic with empiricism.
So, I simply don't see the "problem" with logic or mathematics you seem to suggest. Again, perhaps I'm completely misunderstanding you. I'm open to correction. But as I understand it, nothing about the CERTAINTY of deduction is up for grabs here, insofar as we are willing to forgo the notion that we can have COMPLETE knowledge of ALL possible logic! As far as we KNOW and will ever actually know, it works flawlessly. Nothing about the Incompleteness Theorem suggests that the certainty of deduction is in question. It is only in question if you try to employ it to prove a COMPLETE, infinite set of theorems (or reduce one such infinite set to another, as was Russel's studied goal). I know of nobody trying to do that today. But that presents no "problem" in the context of our discussion.
Thus, nothing motivates an "inversion" on my part. What you are suggesting is something akin to deduction resulting FROM induction, and it's another huge discussion to show how that doesn't work. But, for the moment, let's stick to this aspect of the discussion. Am I understanding your point correctly?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Perhaps I am trying to do too much with too few words.
At its root, my conjecture is that the nature of the universe defines the types of algebras that are available to construct logical systems. While you might be able to think up mathematical systems that appear to not have anything at all to do with physics, that does not preclude the possibility that that mathematics is actually there because of the physical nature of the universe, we might not understand that right now, but that would not disprove the possibility.
Separate human thought from mathematics, and history from mathematics. Far from being some abstract universal truth, there are a large areas which are still uncertain and unresolved in almost every part of Tony's chart up above, including logic. Conflating the human experience of mathematics with actual mathematics is an error, as you pointed out in your a*#umption of "universality" you'd expect mathematics to be independent of human thought.
I would take that a step further and say that the "universality" arises from the fact that mathematics is yet another manifestation of the physical universe. Other universes may have other mathematics.
My example of quantum mechanics was to point out that the logical algebras of classical mechanics and of quantum mechanics are quite different. While we live in the world of classical mechanics and understand that logic well, we have a tough time learning how the quantum world works, our classical intuition just doesn't help. Most of the so called "paradoxes" of quantum mechanics have their origin in the conflict of our classical prejudice with that of the quantum domain.
These physical systems which approximate the universe in the different physical domains are explainable by mathematics, it is interesting to contemplate that this is not an accident, but something quite a bit stranger, that the physics determines the mathematics.
If you consider the process of constructing logical propositions and admit that there is a physical element in that construction, it might be easier to see my point that the physical limitations of the construction could result in a limitation of the logical propositions.
Oddly, this would say we couldn't think of mathematics other than what exists in this universe. While this means that mathematics is "universal" in one sense, it is not the sense that you mean.
I don't expect that you will understand this, and if you do, I am certain that you would not accept it.
There may yet be empirical tests of these ideas in a rather complex way. But the ideas have a bit of a ways to go to become testable.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Well I understood this Ed, or at least I think I did!
It's an explanation that is completely consistent within your materialist world view and since I feel equally distant from both math and physics, I am neutral in this argument. This neutrality of view somehow makes the issues much clearer than when we have the same sorts of discussions from the point of view of spirituality and mysticism vs neurobiology.
I have never conceived of the spiritual dimension as either physical or mathematical so the argument seems clearer than when my own experience is part of my understanding. Too soon to say, but this might give me a new opening on the question, or at least a new analogy to use.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
This has certainly been one of the better OT threads we've had here in a while. There are some sharp cookies at the taco.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
Thus, when the Bible says that in six DAYS (evening and morning) God created the heavens and the earth, I take that to be what those passages are ABOUT; and I recognize that it is impossible to be CLEARER about what is stated. Literally, each of those verses EMPHASIZES the literal, 24-hour period as a DAY just as we now know it. If you were TRYING to say: "I mean, really, a literal, 24-hour day," you couldn't say it more clearly than it is said in those passages. In the original Hebrew, the verbiage is: "Evening was, and morning was: the first day," "Evening was, and morning was: the second day." And so on. The ancient Hebrews reckoned days from sundown to sundown, rather than the much later Roman reckoning of midnight to midnight. So, to the ancient Hebrews, "Evening was, and morning was: day one," COULD NOT be clearer. And conveying the 24-hourness of the DAYS is what those passages are ABOUT. THAT is their sole point.
Again... Now we have something to work with...
You claim this is CLEAR, that it means 24 hours days. YET, the Earth (day 1) was created before the sun (day 4), so there could have been no "sun up or sun down", AND 24 hours is a revolution of the Earth that revolves around what? The Sun. That sun going "up and down, and back up again". So, as per your own words/argument of WHY it is correct, that they viewed a day RELATIVE to the Sun Thing is CLEARLY and demonstrably WRONG. Thing is, when it was written thousands of years ago, they didn't know all of that... They thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, thus it was created first.... So, we can now understand WHY it is wrong, yet you IGNORE all of this so it can "still be right".
Even most Jews, and Rabbinic Scholars, of today realize this, and do not take it literally, and remember, it is THEIR text and religion we are talking about. (More on that below)
Now, I will understand if you state that astrophysics, cosmology, and even geology, are well outside your area of detailed understanding, BUT for you to so confidently dismiss the mountains of evidence that support it, with little or no understanding, is not sound thinking.
And, as for CLEAR... Jesus' words were VERY clear in his prediction/exclamation that "all this would come to pass" (he would return) before the current generation has passed. CLEARLY WRONG! Yet from the own mouth of who you believe to be your "all knowing" God, who doesn't make mistakes.
But see... Here is the disconnect... Look at the above two examples. You can CLEARLY see that Jesus was wrong in what he said, AND that your belief in the whole 6 day thing is wrong, given just the order things were created juxtaposed against what we know for a fact. E.g., Earth revolves around the Sun, ALL of the OVERWHELMING evidence that shows that the Earth is VERY old, and that there were start (the Heavens) LONG before our Earth was formed.
BUT, you have that secret decoder ring of delusion that allows you to see what you want... It influences what you percieve as reality... Even to the point where you can willfully ignore and dismiss FACTS, and overlook the CLEARLY illogical.
Now, you can claim I am just nit-picking, but you diddn't have a "Grilled Cheese" here, you had SUSHI. BIG difference between the two, but your delusion has you convinced it was Grilled Cheese.
And since you wish to bring in the original Hebrew text... Why do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin? Because Matthew repeats almost word for word what is in Isaiah 7:14? You may wish to look into that, as that is NOT what the original Hebrew text said, in fact, not even close... The original Hebrew text state "of a young maiden", where as the Koine Greek Translation MISTRANSLATED this to "virgin". Again, put this in context, as the Hebrew were extremely obsessed with the sexuality of women, and if they meant "virgin", they would have used that word. In fact, they were so obsessed that they would murder girls for haveing sex before marriage... So again, they would not be ambiguous in stating that.
You can start here, if you like:
http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html
Remember, now... The OT is the basis of the Jewish religion, and THEY (Jewish scholars) are the experts in the meaning of it's anchient texts... A Xian reinterpreting it to suit them is no different than if a Muslim were to reinterpret the NT to shuit them.
NOTE - This (Matthew) is also the source of Jesus riding two animals into Bethlehem, as he scoured the OT for any and all prophecies that he could spin Jesus into. He did a poor job at much of it.
So much for me "not knowing one iota" (as you said) about your belief system... Remember, I was once a born again Xian, and still am VERY interested in Theology and Biblical History.... As much as I am theoretical physics and science, in fact.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!