modest proposal and invitation to discuss
I’ve recently been involved in an interesting discussion on the Intelligent Design blog Telic Thoughts http://telicthoughts.com/interest-in-quantum-consciousness/#comments
with a bright fellow who goes by the pseudonym Thought Provoker. I have great respect for this person as an independent thinker who is unafraid to follow the evidence where it leads. It appears however, that as is often the case when people as different as TP and myself try to have a dialogue we were speaking past one another and the logic behind my position is still not clear to him. I really want to do everything I can to try and overcome the large cultural divide and explain position so that I can be understood by someone Like TP. So I thought I’d give it another go if he is willing
Who knows our little discussion could help to bring postmodernists and fundamentalists together and bridge the red state blue state divide. And we can learn to live in peace and harmony hold hands and sing politically correct campfire songs. We can only hope. If nothing else I hope to clarify my own thoughts in this matter and have some fun.
Because of the obscure nature of our discussion and because it combines not only cutting edge science but philosophy and theology as well I thought it best to move it here to this old unused blog space I had lying around. That way we can slowly work through the issues when we have time and not distract from the cool things that go on at Telic Thoughts. Be forewarned I am very busy and Internet chat is not top priority in my life so this might take awhile. I find that I can better get my head around something if I take a thorough but leisurely pace. Don’t you?
since we come from radically different backgrounds TP and I had some trouble in our first encounter with words. Sometimes what I intended to convey was not picked up and I’m sure that my friend felt the same way. Therefore it might be best to carefully define our terms first so that ambiguity or equivocations are kept to a minimum.
Defining our terms
Now for some definitions of terms that are bound to come up and a little commentary as to why they might be important. I have endeavored to use standard dictionary definitions where possible although I have not always chosen the first one
Universe: the totality of all matter and energy that exists in the vastness of space, whether known to human beings or not.
In our discussion I originally wanted to use the more common term universe but as you can see there is no mention of non physical laws in this standard definition.
Cosmos: the universe considered as an ordered and integrated whole
Although less common than universe the term conveys the exact concept I’m looking for. I think TP would approve of this term as well. In this case the cosmos would include physical laws and might include such philosophical concepts as the multiverse.
Consistent: Free of contradiction, containing no provable contradiction
This term is very important for our discussion. A cosmos in which the speed of light was both always constant and always changing would contradict itself.
Real: having actual “physical” existence
I put the term physical in italic to emphasize that I believe something can have real physical existence and not be made of matter. Scientific laws real have actual existence in the sense that they have a quantifiable effect on the rest of reality but are not composed of matter or energy. Although I’m not a materialist I want my argument to make sense to a materialist.
Moral: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just
This is the kind of natural law (as apposed to logical or mathematical) that my argument hinges upon. I contend that moral laws are laws in exactly the same way as logical mathematical and scientific laws. I realize that TP disagrees but I believe I can make the case that he is being inconsistent when he does this. I expect to spend a lot of time on this issue
Law: a statement of a “scientific” fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions
In this definition "scientific" simply means empirical and testable. It is important that we distinguish law in this sense from law in the sense of binding or enforceable rule or piece of legislation
Consequence: something that follows as a result
In our former discussion I often used the term penalty to describe the result of violations of natural law and this caused TP some understandable difficulty. He suggested we use the term oscillation. I now think a better word would be consequence.
As in “The consequence of an unstable and inconsistent wavefunction is non existence” or “The consequence of any action is an equal and opposite reaction”
Evil: contrary to natural (logical mathematical scientific or moral) law
We are used to thinking of evil in a strictly human centered sense. It’s important however to understand that for the purpose of our discussion a true statement that violates the laws of logic is evil. The same goes for a true axiom that violates the laws of mathematics. The same goes for a real perpetual motion machine
Christ event: The sacrificial death of an innocent individual that is fully God and fully human at the same time and that is qualified to serve as a federal representative of both parties, followed by evidence for the acceptance of this act.
The theological term for this is the passion of Christ but I think Christ event sounds cooler don’t you agree?
Christianity: The religion that basis its existence on the reality of the “Christ event” and endeavors to explore and live out its implications.
This definition specifically rules out religions based only on following Christ teachings and religions that don’t recognize the deity of Christ. I’m not being exclusive here just trying to be precise as to my definition.
My argument
If TP or anyone else for that matter is willing to engage in discussion here and we can agree to terms I will try and prove the following syllogism. Please note for the sake of clarity I’m interested in discussing with folks that are at least willing to assume sentence number 1 is true.
1) The cosmos will do what ever is necessary to be consistent with itself.
2) If the moral law is a real (and it is) and the Christ event did not happen the cosmos is inconsistent with itself.
Therefore….
3) Christianity is necessarily true.
If I get a responce to this post and if we can agree on our terms. I will address the premises of my syllogism one at a time in upcoming posts
What do you say are you game TP???
I’ve recently been involved in an interesting discussion on the Intelligent Design blog Telic Thoughts http://telicthoughts.com/interest-in-quantum-consciousness/#comments
with a bright fellow who goes by the pseudonym Thought Provoker. I have great respect for this person as an independent thinker who is unafraid to follow the evidence where it leads. It appears however, that as is often the case when people as different as TP and myself try to have a dialogue we were speaking past one another and the logic behind my position is still not clear to him. I really want to do everything I can to try and overcome the large cultural divide and explain position so that I can be understood by someone Like TP. So I thought I’d give it another go if he is willing
Who knows our little discussion could help to bring postmodernists and fundamentalists together and bridge the red state blue state divide. And we can learn to live in peace and harmony hold hands and sing politically correct campfire songs. We can only hope. If nothing else I hope to clarify my own thoughts in this matter and have some fun.
Because of the obscure nature of our discussion and because it combines not only cutting edge science but philosophy and theology as well I thought it best to move it here to this old unused blog space I had lying around. That way we can slowly work through the issues when we have time and not distract from the cool things that go on at Telic Thoughts. Be forewarned I am very busy and Internet chat is not top priority in my life so this might take awhile. I find that I can better get my head around something if I take a thorough but leisurely pace. Don’t you?
since we come from radically different backgrounds TP and I had some trouble in our first encounter with words. Sometimes what I intended to convey was not picked up and I’m sure that my friend felt the same way. Therefore it might be best to carefully define our terms first so that ambiguity or equivocations are kept to a minimum.
Defining our terms
Now for some definitions of terms that are bound to come up and a little commentary as to why they might be important. I have endeavored to use standard dictionary definitions where possible although I have not always chosen the first one
Universe: the totality of all matter and energy that exists in the vastness of space, whether known to human beings or not.
In our discussion I originally wanted to use the more common term universe but as you can see there is no mention of non physical laws in this standard definition.
Cosmos: the universe considered as an ordered and integrated whole
Although less common than universe the term conveys the exact concept I’m looking for. I think TP would approve of this term as well. In this case the cosmos would include physical laws and might include such philosophical concepts as the multiverse.
Consistent: Free of contradiction, containing no provable contradiction
This term is very important for our discussion. A cosmos in which the speed of light was both always constant and always changing would contradict itself.
Real: having actual “physical” existence
I put the term physical in italic to emphasize that I believe something can have real physical existence and not be made of matter. Scientific laws real have actual existence in the sense that they have a quantifiable effect on the rest of reality but are not composed of matter or energy. Although I’m not a materialist I want my argument to make sense to a materialist.
Moral: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just
This is the kind of natural law (as apposed to logical or mathematical) that my argument hinges upon. I contend that moral laws are laws in exactly the same way as logical mathematical and scientific laws. I realize that TP disagrees but I believe I can make the case that he is being inconsistent when he does this. I expect to spend a lot of time on this issue
Law: a statement of a “scientific” fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions
In this definition "scientific" simply means empirical and testable. It is important that we distinguish law in this sense from law in the sense of binding or enforceable rule or piece of legislation
Consequence: something that follows as a result
In our former discussion I often used the term penalty to describe the result of violations of natural law and this caused TP some understandable difficulty. He suggested we use the term oscillation. I now think a better word would be consequence.
As in “The consequence of an unstable and inconsistent wavefunction is non existence” or “The consequence of any action is an equal and opposite reaction”
Evil: contrary to natural (logical mathematical scientific or moral) law
We are used to thinking of evil in a strictly human centered sense. It’s important however to understand that for the purpose of our discussion a true statement that violates the laws of logic is evil. The same goes for a true axiom that violates the laws of mathematics. The same goes for a real perpetual motion machine
Christ event: The sacrificial death of an innocent individual that is fully God and fully human at the same time and that is qualified to serve as a federal representative of both parties, followed by evidence for the acceptance of this act.
The theological term for this is the passion of Christ but I think Christ event sounds cooler don’t you agree?
Christianity: The religion that basis its existence on the reality of the “Christ event” and endeavors to explore and live out its implications.
This definition specifically rules out religions based only on following Christ teachings and religions that don’t recognize the deity of Christ. I’m not being exclusive here just trying to be precise as to my definition.
My argument
If TP or anyone else for that matter is willing to engage in discussion here and we can agree to terms I will try and prove the following syllogism. Please note for the sake of clarity I’m interested in discussing with folks that are at least willing to assume sentence number 1 is true.
1) The cosmos will do what ever is necessary to be consistent with itself.
2) If the moral law is a real (and it is) and the Christ event did not happen the cosmos is inconsistent with itself.
Therefore….
3) Christianity is necessarily true.
If I get a responce to this post and if we can agree on our terms. I will address the premises of my syllogism one at a time in upcoming posts
What do you say are you game TP???
posted by Fifth Monarchy Man at
4:44 PM
3 Comments:
I am game. But I have gone way past my allocated time for blogging and am getting seriously behind on my real work.
Therefore, it will take a while for me to do this justice (not today).
Meanwhile, I will give you my knee jerk reactions to your definitions.
My compliments on your definitions. It was a good attempt. However, I have some nitpicking.
Universe = matter + energy
is going to be practically useless.
I am not a materialist to the point that I don't believe matter exists (matter has no substance). To me, everything is a due to perturbations in one giant spacetime wavefunction.
Therefore, my definition of the universe is that it is this single wavefunction which can be thought of as the unification of all observable scientific laws.
Any multiverse would transcend these observable scientific laws. That is why I think multiverse is as metaphysical as any divine entity that also transcends our universe.
But understand I would suggest there are no inherent things such as time or even obvserable scientific laws in something outside our universe. You would have to even present a compelling argument that consistency is an appropriate presumption for this metaphysical realm.
The term "Cosmos" would be fine for referencing the timeless, lawless all (although I think it would confuse people outside this discussion).
I will leave the definition of "moral" up to you.
My definition of "ethics" is that it is the evolved code of behavior that provides for predictability in interactions between individual animals especially humans.
You might want to consider describing what you see as a difference between your “morals” and my “ethics”.
Let me offer the Spartan practice of throwing malformed babies off a cliff. I consider that was an ethical act for that place and time.
Hey TP
Glad to see you could make it.
You said;
But I have gone way past my allocated time for blogging and am getting seriously behind on my real work.
I say:
Me too, my job as a Russian wedding planner keeps me hopping
Don’t expect rapid responses from me either. Take your time I’m in no hurry
You said:
my definition of the universe is that it is this single wavefunction which can be thought of as the unification of all observable scientific laws.
I say:
That sounds almost platonic I might call such a unification the Logos and the universe as the separate creation that it acts upon. But I get your drift.
You say:
Any multiverse would transcend these observable scientific laws. That is why I think multiverse is as metaphysical as any divine entity that also transcends our universe.
I say:
I agree unless the multiverse became observable at which point it would become part of the universe.
You say:
understand I would suggest there are no inherent things such as time or even obvserable scientific laws in something outside our universe. You would have to even present a compelling argument that consistency is an appropriate presumption for this metaphysical realm.
You say:
I understand your position and am prepared to argue on that basis. My argument does not rest on anything existing outside the cosmos. Even though I’m a traditional theist I don’t intend to press that point here.
You say:
My definition of "ethics" is that it is the evolved code of behavior that provides for predictability in interactions between individual animals especially humans.
I say:
I understand your definition of ethics however it should have little effect on our discussion here. Always remember I am talking moral as defined as conforming to the moral law and I’m willing to go on record as saying that the Spartans were not moral even though they might have been ethical according to your definition. I could say the same for American slaveholders and German Nazis.
As soon as you let me know we are cool with definitions I will move on to the first premise.
Peace
I think we are good.
I was a little confused by your statement
"My argument does not rest on anything existing outside the cosmos."
Since my understanding of the definition of "cosmos" we are using inherently means there is nothing outside it. There might be something outside the universe, but not the cosmos, right?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home