Subject: Re: Music, religion, etc.
From: jason varsoke (jjv@caesun.msd.ray.com)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2000 - 10:18:50 EST
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote:
> My point has to do with the "number of steps required to account for the
> phenomena." That's the point of Occam's razor. We move quite simply back to
> some kind of First Cause (Aristotle) and stop there. As opposed to modern
> scientific theories.
I'm not sure how modern science differs from Occam's principle. We're
still looking for the first cause of things. Though, the introduction of
true randomness in quantium physics certainly does shake this. And the
Heisenburg Uncertainty principle also might be seen as counter to Occam,
but I think you were refering to something more systematic.
> Arguing from experience only works one way, btw. You can't argue from
> "non-experience." I haven't experienced George Thomas in Minnesota. But I'd
> bet you there's at least one up there, and that he exists :) In other words,
> lack of experience isn't proof of non-existence in the same way experience is
> a proof of existence. And if you haven't had an experience, you can't
> declare irrational the beliefs of those who do (as Robbie was doing).
> Rather, you need to account rationally for the widespread, almost universal,
> nature of the experience...
Actually, it's also a falacy that experience proves anything to anyone
other than the people who have experienced it. Millions of people have
seen Elvis. Does that mean Elvis still exists? He does, of course, but
let's say he doesn't. Why don't we believe these people? Because we know
hoi polloi are easily fooled. Not to mention they lie. But the same goes
for people who claim to witness any miracle. It was less than a thousand
people who witnessed JC's transmutation of bread into fish. Fewer than
that witnessed his resurrection. No one can be said to actually have
witnessed his death (since coma can appear like death, hence vampires and
embalming). Yet billions of people believe in Elvis . . . I mean Jesus.
The only way experience proves anything is if it is verifiable.
Science deals with experience. In 1993 some jag-offs said they succeeded
in Cold Fusion. No one could reproduce it. No one believes it. That's
how science works.
[continuing after quotes]
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/11/00 2:31:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
shok@netcom.com
> writes:
>
> > Sorry, but I have a real problem pulling the complexity that the mere
> > existence of an all-powerful deity introduces out of the situation.
If
> > the Universe brought itself into existence in accordance with its own
> > laws, the process getting from there to here may have many steps, but
> > it's not very complex; certainly no more complex than those laws
(which
> > we are still not entirely sure of, but if Einstein and other major
> > theoretical physicists are/were right, these "laws" might be a single
> > "law," incredibly elegant and simple.)
> >
> > But if the Universe was brought into existence by an already-existing
> > deity, then that deity must be explained in order to satisy me (the
same
> > way magic must be explained to satisfy me in the email scenario).
And
> > that adds an unbelievable amount of complexity. Heavy emphasis on
> > "unbelievable."
> >
> > robbie
>
> Nothing we have ever seen "brought itself into existence."
> Everythingwe see
> happen appears to proceed from a cause. Postulating a First Cause is
the
> easiest thing to do. It is consistent with our experience and accounts
for
> all the facts.
>
> Rather than what you're asserting, which seems an impossibility.
>
> Jim
Postulating a first cause is not the easiest thing to do. First, what
defines easy? Why not say there was no first cause, time just goes on
infinitely into the past without beginning? Sounds just as easy as a
Omnicient, Omnipotent First Cause that can make something out of nothing.
I don't even have to violate any rules of physics to have infinite time.
I don't have to step out nature to do this, while I do to get something
SuperNatural.
Personally, I think the easiest thing is so say, "I don't know."
It's also not everything we experience has a cause. The "Prime Mover"
argument, the one you guys are dancing around about there needing to be a
first cause, because everything is contingent, is easily disproved. All
you have to do is point out something that isn't dependent on a cause.
Time does not have a cause. The argument is simple enough. If Time
has a cause then there was a before Time existed. Before is a temporal
concept. For there to be a Before, Time must already exist. Therefore,
since you cannot have a Before, you cannot have a causal event. The same
is true for after Time. You can't have the end of time, because then
you'd have an after.
Now here's a bone to chew on. Modern Physics claims that space and
time are the same thing. I'll leave that one alone.
But really, after all this discussion I have to clarify something for
you. Though I love Occam, and think is principle is great, it's only a
principle. Occam's Razor has no baring on the Truth of anything. It's
the same as the priciple of "Always eschew the passive voice." Well,
George Orwell's 1984 was written in the passive voice, and I'd say it did
pretty well. Or even better, Heisenburg's Uncertaintly Priciple. I once
asked Fienman (read his book) about the HUP. He told me that we can't
prove it, but assuming it makes all our QED quations look pretty.
Occam's Razor is a great first round eliminator for specious arguments.
But it doesn't always flesh out the truth. Oh, and he doesn't say "The
easiest/simplest explaination is the best." He says, "Avoid undue
multiplicity [in explainations]." The point is "undue."
-j
________oOOOo__/~~~~\__oOOOo_________________________________
Jason Varsoke jvarsoke@bigfoot.com
For good mental hygiene, shave with Occam's Razor twice daily
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:06 EST