gdp's Comments

Filipino Freethinkers : Quantum Queries: Is Ours A Clockwork Universe?

Wed, 4 Jul 2012 08:59:57 +0000

http://bit.ly/p56woA sorry for spoiling the fun, meowie. ;) well, you've had your fun now, so, back in the box you go, where we can have ours.

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:06:23 +0000

I know the BGV to be a moot point from the moment you brought it up, but I think in these kind of discussions about 'proof' it's important that this kind of inaccuracy (from my point of view, it goes without saying) about a theorem does not go unchallenged. XIII (emphasis mine): '[T]he basic presupposition that the BGV Theorem proves that the universe had an absolute beginning isn't wrong (and I'm sure you already know that I have quotations from Vilenkin to that effect). When you want to get into subtleties, of course there are exceptions to the theorem but the problem is that none of those exceptions work (since they universally run into intractable problems) so I'm still not wrong when I say that the BGV Theorem proves that the universe must have had an absolute beginning.' To what effect? Well, let's consult Vilenkin. Vilenkin: '[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes".' So, Yes: it implies the universe had a beginning. Does it prove the universe had an absolute beginning? Vilenkin says No. XIII says yes. Vilenkin: '[T]he words “absolute beginning” ... raise some red flags.' Does the theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? XIII: 'Yes.' Vilenkin: 'No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning.' ('Absolute beginning' raise some red flags.) That 'but' subtlety is worth getting into—I think moreso by you—since it's actually that 'but' part that is of use to you: it is when you actually have him on record say anything about proofs about beginnings of some kind (except of course that he's talking about the expansion(s) itself). We have three other relevant and competent physicists say the same thing as Vilenkin does about what the theorem does and does not prove. One would've thought the views of these authorities count for something ... esp. having seen you pull an argument from authority when it suited you when trying to knock down one of Garrick's points. How you can still say you are not wrong in saying the theorem proves an absolute beginning to the universe beggars belief. This is the last I'll say anything about the BGV because it looks like it might hamper discussions bet. you and Garrick on the other important—perhaps more critical—points on the personhood arguments and counter-arguments from both sides. (Unless of course this BGV crops up again, then I have no choice but to respond to it.) Speaking of personhood... I have, I think, what may be a counter to the changeless (and/or atemporality) feature of the person-ful God, should he be the first cause, so I'll run it by you and Garrick and forego the BGV objection for now. I'll put it up, time-permitting, as soon as it's in a coherent form. (One last thing. You stress, 'Even Garrick's UGM concedes that the universe must have had an absolute beginning.' True. But don't forget it's you who wanted to relegate the UGM into being part of the universe in the first place, so we are where we are not for anyone but yourself. :) )

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:28:24 +0000

XIII: ‘I keep repeating myself.’ So must I, it seems. XIII: ‘Remember, I said that universes with an average expansion rate greater than zero must have had a beginning in the finite past. This is precisely what Vilenkin says that the theorem proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning.’ Except that's not exactly what you’ve been saying. ‘[T]he theorem shows that any universe with an expansion rate greater than zero must have had an absolute beginning … The problem is that our universe does have an expansion rate greater than zero and that means that the universe must have had an absolute beginning.’ I’m sure, or would hope that, you agree that it is critical to note the massive difference between the paper's author saying the theorem only proves a past boundary to the expansion of the universe and you (or Craig) saying the theorem proves the absolute beginning of the universe. The two statements aren’t interchangeable, but that is exactly what you are attempting to do here. XIII: ‘This is precisely what Vilenkin says that the theorem proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning.’ Exactly … and that when asked if he thought the theorem proved the absolute beginning of the universe, the answer was ‘No.’ This stands in direct opposition to what you are—or have been—insisting that yes, the theorem proves an absolute beginning to the universe. XIII: ‘This of course means that universes that do not have an expansion rate that is greater than zero aren't affected by the BGV Theorem.’ This is inaccurate; the universes in the three models that Garrick already mentioned are all expanding and yet evade the BGV. (Aguirre, http://bit.ly/NWi4Xr: 'What all of their theorems do are (a) write out a set of conditions which they consider to correspond to eternal inflation, then (b) show that the region in which these conditions hold is geodesically incomplete. This would indeed be consistent with eternal inflation “emerging from a primordial singularity”, but it is also consistent with eternal inflation just being grafted onto some spacetime region that is not eternally inflating by their definition.') XIII: ‘I have been clear about this from the very beginning so any accusation of misleading is grossly inappropriate.” …while it's perfectly fine for you to say to me to ‘[reread] the quote and not just [concentrate] on the parts that catch [my] eye’, and say that my quote of Vilenkin is a bit misleading, right? ;) Maybe it wasn't your intention, but your take of the theorem, as I've already shown, is misleading all the same.

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:03:45 +0000

XIII: 'This is a bit misleading. Vilenkin's reply, when asked directly what were the implications of the theorem, was that the simple answer was "yes" but that if you were willing to get into subtleties, the answer would be "no, but".' No, not in the slightest misleading. For one, I gave a link and reference to the complete statement by Vilenkin, and second, Garrick actually provided the whole quote beforehand—after which one would find my shortened "No" quote (together with my suggestion of thinking of the BGV as pertaining more to the expansion or expanding regions). Here it is again, in full this time: Stenger: 'Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?' Vilenkin: 'No.' [As in No, the theorem does not prove the universe must have had a beginning.] But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning.' Your contention has always been that the BGV proved the universe must have had an absolute beginning. If there 's any misleading being done, intentional or otherwise, it's your selective quotes and your continued refusal to even acknowledge what has been said in the paper itself, clarifications by its authors, and summaries given by the other competent physicists in the field.. You really need to move on from the BGV (your misuse and misunderstanding of it) as it is clear Garrick's UGM occupies a different realm. Beyond the expanding region of spacetime of the initial inflation where the BGV ends ('What can lie beyond this boundary?') is, I think, more spacetime for you to traverse, alongside a whole host of competing (scientific) accounts*—before the UGM is in sight. (* Perhaps here, instead of the BGV, you can make use of one of Vilenkins more recent papers, co-authored with Audrey Mithani, in which they consider cyclic evolution and the emergent universe models and come out with the same conclusion, the universe is probably past-incomplete: Did the universe have a beginning?, http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658.)

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:53:57 +0000

XIII: 'Of course the assumption of the theorem breaks down at some point simply because this point is the beginning implied by the Theorem. This is why Craig is "basically correct" on his fundamental assumptions about the BGV Theorem.' The theorem does not prove the absolute beginning of our universe, let alone the UGM being proposed by Garrick. What it does is put a 'limit' specifically (but not limited) to inflation, or a series of inflations, for the past direction. 'Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete I. Introduction. Inflationary cosmological models are generically eternal to the future. In these models, the Universe consists of post-inflationary, thermalized regions coexisting with still-inflating ones. ... [T]he inflating regions expand so fast that their physical volume grows exponentially with time. As a result, there is never a time when the Universe is completely thermalized. In such spacetimes, it is natural to ask if the Universe could also be past-eternal.' Their answer to that question, as you very well know, is no. But more importantly, for our purposes at least, the authors later ask: 'What can lie beyond this boundary?' ... What does that tell you? This just doesn't tally with your claim that the theorem proves the universe had an absolute beginning. There's no exegesis needed, not by you or me, to derive any other conclusions other than that which the authors themselves (plus two other physicists whose area of expertise we're treading in) were clear in laying out. I repeat Vilenkin's subsequent clarification: 'the words “absolute beginning” do raise some red flags'; (Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?) 'No.' Read about inflation, and I promise you it will be clearer to you why all the physicists mentioned here are more circumspect (than you and Craig and co.) in their summary of the accounts, including their own, of the pre-inflationary universe, and that a better way (one that departs slightly from Garrick's view, I think) to think of the BGV theorem is to think of it as 'proof' that it is the inflationary expansion/s of the universe that cannot continue eternally to the past—and not that the whole universe (pre-inflation included and ToE aside) could not have. To be clear, I'm not asking that you abandon the BGV theorem. (If anything, I find it curious that you are touting and appealing to an inflationary model of our universe. I wonder what form the theodicies and the fine-tuning arguments will take when faced with the infinite universes of inflation. But I digress.) It's just that in this case it just doesn't apply to Garrick's UGM—the theorem simply wasn't designed to give you a picture of that pre-initial inflation event. Here's the paper again: 'Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can some-how be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.'

Filipino Freethinkers : The Eternal Universe

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:46:40 +0000

GB: 'I must clarify that Vilenkin himself does not think that his work proves that our universe had an absolute beginning.' XIII: 'The first quotation is ... misunderstood by many atheists to mean that Vilenkin himself doesn't believe in an absolute beginning of the universe. ... The problem is that our universe does have an expansion rate greater than zero and that means that the universe must have had an absolute beginning.' Here is Vilenkin himself on the matter (emphasis mine): 'I would say [Craig's statement] is basically correct, except the words “absolute beginning” do raise some red flags. The theorem says that if the universe is everywhere expanding (on average), then the histories of most particles cannot be extended to the infinite past. In other words, if we follow the trajectory of some particle to the past, we inevitably come to a point where the assumption of the theorem breaks down—that is, where the universe is no longer expanding. This is true for all particles, except perhaps a set of measure zero. In other words, there may be some (infinitely rare) particles whose histories are infinitely long.' - Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. pp. 127-30 (via poster 'Teton', http://bit.ly/LgrM54)

Filipino Freethinkers : Freedom Outside Free Will

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:30:43 +0000

Miguel: '[d_gently] still tries to save face by trying to make it seem like I was saying that all philosophers --all, mind you; every single philosopher-- should be consulted, and that I couldn't have possibly meant only the ones who actually have something to say about the debate --the one that the author of the article above has framed.' 59% of people in the know, who are compatibilists (aka self-deluded soft determinists) ... 71% of people in the know, who reject contra-causal free will ... 56% of people in the know, who are non-dualists ... guy in the know Eddy Nahmias—'associate professor in the Philosophy Department and the Neuroscience Institute at Georgia State University' (http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/) and another guy in the know Sean Greenberg—'published work has focused on issues in early modern moral psychology: in particular, on conceptions of freedom, and of the passions.' (http://bit.ly/ISYyn9), both of whom bear witness to the 'the general state of play of the debates around free will' ... — Experts before, but all now suddenly and conveniently have nothing to say about the debate? I wonder why that is.... 'Then he quotes philosophers saying how libertarian free-will can't be true.' An outright lie. ' Which he says proves the debate between determinists and non-determinists doesn't exist.' And another one. Lies after lies after lies. I see we've gone from intellectual dishonesty to sheer dishonesty. Staying true to form, Miguel, eh? You never disappoint. ;) Like I said repeatedly: you're completely free to backpedal on, or even retract—in good faith—any of the claims you made in any of the threads. That route is always available to you. Do not ever think that it's too late.

Filipino Freethinkers : Freedom Outside Free Will

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:28:53 +0000

To sort of summarise and then wrap this up: Miguel: 'This book isn't smart at all. Of course it will always seem smart and water-tight for those who don't bother to actually do the research on where the debate really is.' 'Pecier, as a practical matter, we will have to appeal to authority here in a discussion about the brain, mind, and free-will.' 'And, you really ought to know that we would have more practical reasons for appealing to authority --if we needed to-- than Sam would.' 'You'll find that the consensus on [Harris' The Moral Landscape], at least among people in the know, is that it was a failure.' 'Truth is, in the free-will debate, you'll probably hear zero people cite Sam Harris [...]. Scientists will cite him, however, but that just strengthens my point: scientists, apart from providing information about the brain, have no business in this debate.' 'As for what you say about the discussion being only between compatibilism and determinism, this is not true. [...] Obviously, you'll only hear among your fellow "brights" the discussion falling between the lines of the determinists and compatibilists because those 2 sides are what fit well and fine with naturalism.' d_gently: 'Here is the best or the closest to a consensus as we can get on the position of philosophers on free will: Accept or lean toward: compatibilism -- 59%, Other -- 14.9%, Accept or lean toward: libertarianism -- 13.7%, Accept or lean toward: no free will -- 12.2%' - The PhilPapers Surveys, http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl '71% of 'people in the know' reject contra-causal free will.' '[M]ost philosophers (and probably most psychologists and neuroscientists) would argue that we lack that sort of free will.' - person in the know Eddy Nahmias 'These capacities for conscious deliberation, rational thinking and self-control are not magical abilities. They need not belong to immaterial souls outside the realm of scientific understanding (indeed, since we don’t know how souls are supposed to work, souls would not help to explain these capacities). Rather, these are the sorts of cognitive capacities that psychologists and neuroscientists are well positioned to study.' - Nahmias 'This conception of [non-libertarian, non-immaterial, non-contra-casual] free will represents a longstanding and dominant view in philosophy.' - Nahmias '[T]o establish the truth of determinism—a job better left for physics.' - Nahmias —Accusations of 'misinterpretation!', 'quoting out of context!', 'argumentum ad populum!', 'd_gently is arguing that there is only one debate and no others exist!', 'emotional-laden ranting!', 'strawman!', and 'd_gently: all rhetoric!' later— d_gently: 'Guy in the know, Sean Greenberg: ''Eddy's fine response, [...] neatly limns both what position is taken on free will by most philosophers and the general state of play of the debates around free will.'' Read: not contra-causal, libertarian, indeterminist and belonging to the soul, free will. Read: not between determinists and non-determinists. Read (Greenberg again): 'Most philosophers work their way into the problem of free will by considering whether freedom is compatible with determinism.'

Filipino Freethinkers : Freedom Outside Free Will

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:43:49 +0000

[That's the debate I'm talking about. [...] a specific debate, i.e., the one between determinists and non-determinists.] After all this time you still really think your moving goalposts will fly by me unnoticed? For your own benefit (the following is obvious to readers) recall: 'Truth is, in the free-will debate, you'll probably hear zero people cite Sam Harris [...] Scientists will cite him, however, but that just strengthens my point: scientists, apart from providing information about the brain, have no business in this debate.' 'Specific debate' my ass. [Sam Harris is irrelevant on this particular debate for the very reason that he (as far as I know) doesn't even consider the arguments contra determinism, much less argue against them.] It's not only Sam Harris, but your very own experts. So if he's irrelevant, then so are they. You've been ignoring (apart from insinuating that atheism is to blame) the survey and the pronouncements by your people in the know. Expert Eddy Nahmian: 'If the folk understanding of free will' ... read: the sort of free will espoused by you—contra-causal, libertarian, indeterminist and belonging to the soul ... 'then most philosophers (and probably most psychologists and neuroscientists) would argue that we lack that sort of free will.' 'Even if neuroscience and psychology were in a position to establish the truth of determinism a job better left for physics—this would not establish bypassing.' Another guy in the know, Sean Greenberg, reveals: 'Eddy's fine response, [...] neatly limns both what position is taken on free will by most philosophers and the general state of play of the debates around free will.' Read: not contra-causal, libertarian, indeterminist and belonging to the soul, free will. Read: not between determinists and non-determinists. Read (Greenberg again): '[M]ost philosophers work their way into the problem of free will by considering whether freedom is compatible with determinism.' [So I'm supposed to acknowledge a "study" that shows most philosophers are determinists, so you would be magically correct about everything you said, ...] Miguel: Look, Sam Harris not real expert! Look this way, to the Philosophers, the real experts! Me: Okay! * Shows Miguel said real experts * Miguel: No, d_gently, foul! [ .... despite that it has nothing to do with anything I was arguing for.] 'Nothing to do'... Funny that. Miguel, to Pecier: 'As a practical matter, we will have to appeal to authority here in a discussion about the brain, mind, and free-will.' ... 'You really ought to know that we would have more practical reasons for appealing to authority --if we needed to-- than Sam would.' [Your subsequent paragraphs aren't even objective reactions to anything I've said. It's just more of your emotional-laden rantings about how I've offended "science", how I've argued that the "real debate" is between determinists and non-determinists, ] Miguel: 'This book isn't smart at all. Of course it will always seem smart and water-tight for those who don't bother to actually do the research on where the debate really is.' (To Garrick) 'As for what you say about the discussion being only between compatibilism and determinism, this is not true. Soft Determinists still have a lot of self-deluding to do to harmonize their conclusions with reality. [...] Obviously, you'll only hear among your fellow "brights" the discussion falling between the lines of the determinists and compatibilists because those 2 sides are what fit well and fine with naturalism.' Garrick's—and Harris', and, by extension, Pecier's—survey of the free will debate is actually correct, or closer to, the actual debate landscape among philosophers. Read (again): guy in the know Sean Greenberg. Which then makes you wrong. Do you not follow still? [Because saying "*where* the debate really is" is exactly the same as saying "*what* the debate really is". Genius. The latter is what you want people to *think* I'm saying, to justify all the exaggeration and ground shifting you've done for rhetorical effect. Because, clearly, alongside the context of the article, I was saying *where* the debate is BETWEEN the determinists and non-determinists.] Which is—and for throughout this thread, actually—Miguel-speak for Oh, Shit I Was Wrong But No Not Really Because What You Say I Said Is Not Really What I Said And This Is All Your Fault So No I'm Not Wrong.

Filipino Freethinkers : Freedom Outside Free Will

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:14:47 +0000

[Let's remind ourselves again that reading comprehension should be easy enough if one actually exerted the minimal amount of effort to it. I clearly said scientists can give us invaluable information about the brain.] 'Equally' (not really), you also said they have no business in the free will debate. 'Scientists will cite him, however, but that just strengthens my point: scientists, apart from providing information about the brain, have no business in this debate.' (Don't think I didn't notice the late (face-saving) addition of the qualifier 'invaluable'. ;) ) It's okay to backpedal and admit to it, Miguel. In any case, our readers will know the reasons for your doing so (or not doing so). [It seems you're under the impression that there's just one debate on the issue of free-will. The issue was framed in the context of theism vs atheism. One need only read the actual article we're commenting under. And, your inability to be cognizant of the other sides, or, for that matter, other debates, within the issue, doesn't mean they don't exist. ] So, first, it' really me who's appealing to authority. Now, I'm also the one who is ignorant by insisting there is, or must be, only one real debate within the free will issue. Apparently. It's probably also me who has said the following: 'Of course it will always seem smart and water-tight for those who don't bother to actually do the research on where the debate really is.' Yes, it must be me who said this. [[M]aybe you just put too much stock in superlatives despite the very informal setting in which the discussion is taking place, making one wonder how you fare in everyday conversation.] Like I said, you're completely free to backpedal on, or even retract, any of the claims you made in any of the threads. [But yes, I do sign on to the idea, as does Harris, that the compatibilists' free-will is incoherent.] Yes you do; no you don't to the fact that the people in the know you told us to consult think, as does Harris and and the relevant science/scientists, that your idea of free will—the contra-causal free will of a non-physical soul—is incoherent.

Filipino Freethinkers : Freedom Outside Free Will

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:13:23 +0000

All this sophistry devoted to shifting the blame or the burden of proof on your opponent. You always fall back on this tactic, like we've seen you in the discussion on Hilbert's Hotel, whenever you're shown information that disputes claims you've made. And as before, you're fooling no-one with it. 'Oh, but it's you, d_gently who appealed to authority, really, so it's you who need to show us why we should believe 71% of philosophers on free will or 56% of them regarding mind physicalism.' Yeah, right. [Your analogy begs the question that one group --whose views, incidentally, coincide with yours-- has more authority than the other. [...] So, while you gave us a good example of how an ad populum can be legitimate, you fail to show why yours is.] You were telling everyone to look to the 'right' group—not to Sam Harris nor other scientists, of whom you say shouldn't have any business in the free will debate. Which is exactly what I did: this is what the philosophers are, effectively, saying about free will—more importantly, about contra-causal free will—and the mind. Of course, rather than honestly acknowledge the study, you instead try (unsuccesfully) to make it look to readers like all I'm doing is appealing to the authority of one group—the compatibilists (if it is them you mean)—over the libertarians. Miguel appealing to authority: legitimate! d_gently appealing to authority, by way of Miguel: fallacious! Free will, 'as a set of capacities for imagining future courses of action, deliberating about one’s reasons for choosing them, planning one’s actions in light of this deliberation and controlling actions in the face of competing desires'—not contra-causal, libertarian free will—'represents a longstanding and dominant view in philosophy,' so says one person in the know, about people in the know. Apparently, this is no longer legitimate or relevant, according to someone in the know about people in the know. Neuroscientists, psychologists, physicists, et al., can rejoice—they are now in the good company of philosophers! Miguel (an earlier Miguel, that is; pre-PhilPapers survey), to Pecier: 'An you really ought to know that we would have more practical reasons for appealing to authority --if we needed to-- than Sam would. He's written a book for crying out loud, while we argue with each other at comment boxes. If we can have 50 or more pages to make our case, and with the time to do so, then you can argue it would be a distinction without a difference. But, until then, you can't.' So Sam Harris could have as well appealed to the 'proper' authorities—as per Miguel—not bad, bad science, and Sam Harris would still be wrong about contra-causal free will. [Secondly, "physicians" have empirical evidence that can show how high-fat diets conduce to unhealth, while the question of free-will depends too much on ones metaphysical framework for reality for anyone to have empirical evidence for.] Says the dualist, soul-believing libertarian... meanwhile also maintaining that libertarianis are correct because 'the evidence puts their case in the right.' One wonders what or where this evidence is, and which proper experts to consult this time around (if it isn't the philosophers). [And, next time, quote people in context. Below illustrates how you've done otherwise: [...] if you actually quoted what I said properly, you'll find I said exactly this: "scientists, apart from providing information about the brain, have no business in this debate.] Right, of course! I'm quoting you out of context—that's why I included and didn't take out the 'context', which still sits atop the thread we're in. Science/scientists would help shed light on the free will debate ... but shouldn't have a business in it... Makes perfect sense. Scientists, leave the deep thinking to the philosphers! —No, scratch that. Neuroscientists, leave the deep thinking to the libertarians! (That goes for you too, physicists on determinism. Sorry.)

Filipino Freethinkers : Freedom Outside Free Will

Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:03:25 +0000

[I don't think I said 'people in the know' think Sam's arguments are wrong.] You'd have a point had I made that accusation which your railing against. Needless to say, I did not. [And, no, I didn't say science has nothing for us that would shed light on this debate. This would have been clear if you read what I said with the minimal amount of fairness.] Really.... Again with the intellectual dishonesty. You say 'we will have to appeal to authority here in a discussion about the brain, mind, and free-will'—a discussion which, according to you, scientists 'have no business in.' Your words. [Also, an appeal to authority is different from an argumentum ad populum.] It was you who was dismissing Sam Harris as irrelevant on the debate on free will, and you who wanted us to instead consult the proper experts. You are now being informed of what these experts say. You are now getting exactly what you asked for. And now that said experts don't agree with your assertions, they are now suddenly relegated as mere members of populace. Right. Thanks for the lesson in logic, Miguel, but no thanks. Your attempt at an appeal to authority is fallacious, and you need to learn this soon. And about my own, supposedly fallacious, appeal to the majority (as if I referred to philosophers out of nowhere)? 'Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum: the appeal is not irrelevant when what most persons believe or what the select few believe does in fact determine what is true. Conventional truth such as the definitions of words, standard use of symbols, styles, or political elections are typical examples where the appeal to the majority , the experts, or the people-in-the-know would be relevant and so would not be fallacious. A. If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g., to remark that most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy, so that it follows that persons who have a high fat diet should change their eating habits, is to make a legitimate appeal.' - Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum, http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html Let's remind ourselves again who it was who said philosophers were the proper experts to consult in these matters.... [Pecier, as a practical matter, we will have to appeal to authority here in a discussion about the brain, mind, and free-will.] The 'authorities' have (or had) spoken and they actually agree with Sam Harris as far as contra-casual/libertarian free will is concerned and are firmly in the same camp with him against the indeterminists/libertarians. This is relevant, no? [The consensus on free-will among philosophers that you shared is exactly what should be expected given how they are also similarly parsed out into theists, atheists and agnostics.] Funny you say this, and for someone admittedly in the know about philosophy and the debate on free will. What should be expected? You told us what should be expected alright. That the real debate lies between libertarians and compatibilists. That science is irrelevant in discussions about free will. That soft determinists—compatibilists—'still have a lot of self-deluding to do to harmonize their conclusions with reality.' That Sam Harris is one irrelevant, incompetent, mere populariser who 'by asserting, rather lazily without any argument (if he has one, please correct me), that mental states are 'physical' and all "beholden to the laws of nature", he has succeeded in making himself not just irrelevant but also a hindrance to actual progress in this age-old philosophical debate about free-will.' All of which of course flies in the face of what the study tells us and, unfortunately for you, in the face of the very experts—philosophers—you bandy about. Philosophers on the whole have long abandoned your much-treasured libertarian free will and actually look to the latest studies in psychology and neuroscience and engage with scientists. But then, let's not forget: being compatibilists they are also, according to you, self-deluded; and, as physicalists, are (were we to listen to you) not only irrelevant but also a hindrance. So much for 'people in the know'....

Filipino Freethinkers : Freedom Outside Free Will

Sun, 8 Apr 2012 14:18:43 +0000

'I think it's also important to note that compatibilists and libertarians define free will in completely different terms.' I believe the part I highlighted stressed this point (though I admit it could've done with less verbiage, for our purposes): 'non-philosophers associate free will with a non-physical mind (or soul) and with the power to make choices ungoverned by natural laws ... most philosophers (and probably most psychologists and neuroscientists) would argue that we lack that sort of free will.' This is contra-casual free will, isn't it, sometimes referred to as libertarian free will, and which is the feature of the soul, both of which a majority of philosophers reject? I'll let Eddy Nahmias do the talking again, in case there's doubt in the mind of some that I'm making this all up (emphasis mine): 'Many philosophers, including me, understand free will as a set of capacities for imagining future courses of action, deliberating about one’s reasons for choosing them, planning one’s actions in light of this deliberation and controlling actions in the face of competing desires. [...] These capacities for conscious deliberation, rational thinking and self-control are not magical abilities. They need not belong to immaterial souls outside the realm of scientific understanding (indeed, since we don’t know how souls are supposed to work, souls would not help to explain these capacities). Rather, these are the sorts of cognitive capacities that psychologists and neuroscientists are well positioned to study. This conception of free will represents a longstanding and dominant view in philosophy, though it is typically ignored by scientists who conclude that free will is an illusion.' - Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?, http://nyti.ms/v48aIL (But!: Nahmias seems to cite a lot of science—not simply to disparage it, mind you, but to also help inform us on the evidences and the facts ('determinism—a job better left for physics', etc.)—even saying that neuroscience 'can help us rediscover free will.' Seriously! He mentions Sam Harris, too, sadly. Last, he also appears to be a soft determinist, presenting the position against that of the hard determinists' (whence libertarians?), so maybe he's deluded and we ought not to listen to him. Maybe he's just No True Philosopher™. ;) ) Indeed, looking at the numbers again, we get a staggering 71% of 'people in the know' rejecting contra-causal free will.... Which comports well, I think, with the result of 56% being non-dualists—read: materialists/physicalists—and, perhaps, to some extent, 73% for atheism. So 'people in the know' have spoken. What now?...

Filipino Freethinkers : Freedom Outside Free Will

Sat, 7 Apr 2012 17:26:05 +0000

Miguel: '[A]s a practical matter, we will have to appeal to authority [DG: philosophers, as per usual] here in a discussion about the brain, mind, and free-will.' '[S]cientists, apart from providing information about the brain, have no business in this debate.' 'Soft Determinists [aka Compatibilists] still have a lot of self-deluding to do to harmonize their conclusions with reality. And don't dismiss libertarians so blithely because the evidence, to my mind, puts their case in the right. Obviously, you'll only hear among your fellow "brights" the discussion falling between the lines of the determinists and compatibilists because those 2 sides are what fit well and fine with naturalism.' '[I]ntentionality, or the aboutness of thought, actually *proves* mind and brain are not one. It's not meant to contra causality. But that could just as well be what it can do if causality is only of the material kind, since intentionality disproves materialism.' Here is the best or the closest to a consensus as we can get on the position of philosophers on free will: Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will? Accept or lean toward: compatibilism -- 59% Other -- 14.9% Accept or lean toward: libertarianism -- 13.7% Accept or lean toward: no free will -- 12.2% (Also: God: theism or atheism? Accept or lean toward: atheism -- 72.8% Accept or lean toward: theism -- 14.6% Other -- 12.5%) - The PhilPapers Surveys, http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl A co-author—a philosopher, take note, you scientists and atheists—of a larger survey (but which used the above findings) had this to say (boldfacing mine): 'There is not a prevailing consensus on the questions of (1) whether free will is compatible with determinism and (2) whether humans have free will. However, I would estimate that close to 2/3 of professional philosophers are compatibilists about free will and determinism (they think determinism poses no threat to free will), with the other 1/3 roughly split between libertarians (who are incompatiblists who believe that we have free will, and hence that determinism is false) and hard incompatiblists or skeptics about free will (who are incompatiblists who believe that we do not have free will because determinism is true and/or indeterminism would not help secure free will). [...] Since compatibilists believe we have free will (though they need not, and I argue that there are threats to free will distinct from determinism that make "skeptical compatibilism" a live position), and libertarians believe we have free will (though they argue that compatibilist free will is not enough), it looks like about 85% of philosophers believe we have free will, which is almost as many as the 90-95% or so of non-philosophers who, in my surveys, say they believe humans have free will. However, it may be that many non-philosophers associate free will with a non-physical mind (or soul) and with the power to make choices ungoverned by natural laws (I'm not sure how committed "the folk" actually are to these theoretical claims and am testing that by doing "experimental philosophy" surveys). If the folk understanding of free will does include such commitments, then most philosophers (and probably most psychologists and neuroscientists) would argue that we lack that sort of free will. So, whether we have free will or not depends on how you define "free will" and it depends on metaphysical and scientific facts about the way humans and the world work.' - Eddy Nahmias, http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/3425 What are we to take from this, hmm... That scientists and most philosophers are all deluded. :) Someone wanted to go the 'philosophy good, science bad' route, so there.

Filipino Freethinkers : Beauty, Life, and Death through a Macro Lens: Is there an Intelligent Designer?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:21:47 +0000

XIII: "Mathematics and logic are not the same thing." Strawman. Whoever said they were? You and Miguel are the ones insisting Hilbert's paradox is logically inconsistent. WLC disagrees, as does the rest of mathematicians and logicians. David Hilbert was a logician. Georg Cantor also a logician. What part of 'Georg Cantor applied the tools of mathematical rigor and logical deduction to questions about infinity in search of satisfactory answers' do you not understand? XIII: "You insist on grouping terms together that may not actually be the same thing (for example, when you insist on grouping mathematical possibilities with metaphysical possibilities)." Where exactly have I done what you say? XIII: "The reason why mathematical possibilities are metaphysically impossible is that it leads to logical contradictions (as per the absence of the prohibitions extant under the framework of Set Theory)." Meaningless twaddle. Maybe we can make out what you're trying to say if—for once—you would actually provide precise definitions for the terms you're using. I've asked you this already, as far back as a week ago. If you actually cared about the 'truth' and philosophy like you so profess, define your terms, instead of coming up with the pathetic excuse about 'negative connotations'. Start with physical possibility, then logical possibility, then metaphysical possibility, then, if you like, mathematical possibility. XIII: "It is the lack of these attendant prohibitions (in that they are absent in reality, as exhibited by Hilbert's Paradox) that lends us to believe that actual infinites, while mathematically useful, are impossible in reality." Oh, add "in reality" to your list. XIII: "The logical contradiction lies thus: you subtract identical infinite quantities from identical infinite quantities and get self-contradictory answers (which is why the subtraction of identical infinite quantities is prohibited in Set Theory)." You need to unpack this; maybe formalise it, if you can—you did say it's a logical contradiction, after all. As we've seen from your equivocations of metaphysical with physical impossibility, we need for you to identify what you mean by 'identical infinite quantities'. It's only fair that you do so. XIII: "While it it true that a metaphysical impossibility is distinct from a physical possibility, it is wholly insufficient to suggest that just from that distinction, we can arrive at the physical possibility of actual infinites." Strawman. Nowhere will you find that I have made such a suggestion. How many times are you going to repeat this lie of yours, XIII? Maybe this is your way not admitting to the bumbling error—or if not, tactic—of sneaking in the term 'physical impossibility' when what you mean really is metaphysical impossibility. XIII: "Also, what are these examples of physically possible actual infinites you keep harping on about?" This shouldn't concern you for now. First, show us the logical contradictions. XIII: "The very nature of infinites (the impossibility of adding up to an actual infinite ) leads us to believe that were an actual infinite to exist, it must exist now (actualized and complete)." There you go again with your impossibilities. 'Very nature'? Multiple unsupported premises in one sentence. Again, let's start with your definitions. XIII: "No, you did not ask me but you implied it (by pointing out that these conclusions are not scientifically verifiable). In any case, I accept your retreat on the point so let us speak no more of this." Retreat?! So, you build up a strawman, which I then expose and then correct, and you call it a retreat? Amazing. This procedure, where I have to routinely fend off your strawmen of my arguments, I cannot accept. The first time—the very first time—we hear from you, it was to pre-empt and ultimately misrepresent my position. This doesn't look at all like it stopped. Maybe if you show yourself to be able to write a response that is free of proxy replacement arguments of the ones I've actually made, I could be convinced to continue this. But not until then.

Filipino Freethinkers : Beauty, Life, and Death through a Macro Lens: Is there an Intelligent Designer?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:03:48 +0000

I owe it to this site's readers to hand over my example of a physically possible infinity and my reasons for why I think Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel, as 'formulated' by David Hilbert, is not the thought experiment which sought to demonstrate the physical impossibility of actual infinites that both Miguel and XIII claim the parable to be; and why, very early on in the comments, I said, 'Maybe Miguel meant See William Lane Craig's use [or misuse] of Hilbert's Paradox, and maybe mistook 'logical' for 'intuitional'.' First, the physically possible infinite: "The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. [...] Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe." - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html "The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Univers... "If we go to smaller and smaller times since the Big Bang, the green circle shrinks to a point, but the 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe." - http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html For Hilbert's Grand Hotel, all retellings I've read all cite George Gamow's own retelling of the parable. In his book One Two Three ... Infinity: Facts and Speculations of Science, the scientist author introduces us to the story thusly: "According to our rule of comparing infinities we must say that the infinity of even numbers is exactly as large as the infinity of all numbers. This sounds, of course, paradoxical, [...]. In fact in the world of infinity a part may be equal to the whole! This is probably best illustrated by an example taken form one of the stories about the famous German mathematician David Hilbert. [Hilbert's Paradox.] Well, it is not easy to imagine the conditions described by Hilbert even in Washington as it was during the war, but this example certainly drives home the point that in operating with infinite numbers we encounter properties rather different from those to which we are accustomed in ordinary arithmetic." - (p. 17, http://goo.gl/usjev) In a New York Times article that is also widely cited, its author imparts: "My goal here is to give you a glimpse of this paradise. But rather than working directly with sets of numbers or points, let me follow an approach introduced by Hilbert himself. He vividly conveyed the strangeness and wonder of Cantor’s theory by telling a parable about a grand hotel, now known as the Hilbert Hotel." - http://goo.gl/FgdF So, there you have it. I hope some of you find these as fascinating as I did, if not as useful. Until next time!

Filipino Freethinkers : Beauty, Life, and Death through a Macro Lens: Is there an Intelligent Designer?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:53:55 +0000

Staying true to form, as predicted. In a pitiful and desperate bid to shift the burden of proof on me, he now wants to make it appear that the default view on Hilbert's Paradox—such is its power it defeats 8 of Pecier's questions—is the one that he happens to hold: "An actual infinity is a logical impossibility." As it happens, I could count not only mathematicians and logicians, scratching their heads at this new—and newly default—state-of-affairs, but even William Lane Craig himself. Maybe all of them owe Miguel a new formulation of a disproof, too, as do I? I don't think he realises people's comments here are actually 'dated' or are arranged in order of the time they have been written; he must think readers of this site will fall for his latest ploy; that because I've mentioned that we have physically possible infinities, it shall be on me whom the burden of proof rests. (Miguel, 4 days ago: "Even d_gently must admit, and maybe has admitted to XIII to some extent, that, at least intuitively, it does seem to be the case that an actual infinity cannot be physically instantiated." DG, 2 weeks ago: "Maybe Miguel meant See William Lane Craig's use [or misuse] of Hilbert's Paradox, and maybe mistook 'logical' for 'intuitional'.") Perhaps this is to be expected seeing he didn't —and, from all indications, still doesn't—understand what logical impossibilities are (and as opposed to physical impossibilities). Else, he would've bothered to check for an example of infinity in physics. You'd wonder though how much an example of a physically possible infinity would achieve at this point, when, until it was imparted to him, he: didn't know what an actual infinity was ("an actual infinity is different from the concept of infinity"); wrong to say Hilbert showed it using his famous math parable ("the grand hotel was another way of saying that [...] the infinite cannot physically exist"); wrong to claim and insist it was a logical impossibility ("An actual infinity is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows") ; and wrong about where the alleged logical contradiction lie ("Even if an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests")). And this from the guy who told us, 'See Hilbert's Paradox.'...

Filipino Freethinkers : Beauty, Life, and Death through a Macro Lens: Is there an Intelligent Designer?

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:46:45 +0000

Miguel, informing us of the logical contradiction: "Even if an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests). Of course, when I said there's a logical contradiction, I meant if it were instantiated in physical reality." Dr. Craig, meanwhile, differs: "It is, of course, true that every time one subtracts all the even numbers from all the natural numbers, one gets all the odd numbers, which are inﬁnite in quantity. But that is not where the contradiction is alleged to lie." Miguel: "d_gently blithely insists that I've made implicit claims of being his philosophical superior." My superior? My? My, another lie. Lying about your opponent so much you've managed to even lie about yourself in the process: Earlier Miguel: "I pretty much studied the evolution of the cosmological argument from Aristotle to the medieval scholastics to Aquinas and Leibniz, and then finally to the modern version that's being popularized by Dr. Craig." "The problem with that version of creation ex nihilo is that it shows Krauss's complete ignorance of philosophy." (Addressing Garrick) "And to say that all that is just "babbling" seems to me a very thin excuse to avoid having to educate oneself in the subject --as indeed one should if he's to be taken seriously." (Still Garrick) "Your equation of this babyish mockery to the ideas of Aristotle, and the old scholastics is telling of your ignorance of philosophy, and it manifests a deep flaw in the way you think." Miguel, educated in philosophy, the subject of infinity, Hilbert's Paradox, and Dr. Craig: "An actual infinity is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows." Dr. Craig, amazingly, counters: "'The argument does not try to prove the logical impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things." Miguel: "So why on earth is he weaselly putting the burden on me to demonstrate for him to his satisfaction how an actual *physical* infinite is impossible? [Logically impossible—which of course he chooses to omit, making the retroactive corrections we've seen, hoping readers of this site wouldn't notice. Stupid readers... -dg] Beats me." Mathematics, Logic, David Hilbert, William Lane Craig, before this FF article: Hilbert's Paradox is logically non-contradictory. Earlier Miguel, and the first mention of Hilbert's Paradox: "There are logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress. See Hilbert's Paradox." And, "An actual infinity is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows." DG: "See Veridical Paradox." "See Burden Of Proof." Tinternets: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." - http://goo.gl/hdfF "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition." - http://goo.gl/Kfg3W "In an argument, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion." - http://goo.gl/5804o Expect more of the same sort of time-travelling corrections from he who's studied Dr. Craig, his latest being "subtracting infinity from infinity can yield both zero and infinity." Not even this another late addition of another supposed logical contradiction, to say nothing of its being no longer in Hilbert's Paradox, is going to save him. At this point, though, I'd rather have the conversation with someone with at least some traces of intellectual honesty in him and one who has, to quote and paraphrase, "educated himself in the subject—as indeed one should if he's to be taken seriously." As indeed.

Filipino Freethinkers : Beauty, Life, and Death through a Macro Lens: Is there an Intelligent Designer?

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:58:11 +0000

Here it is, Pecier: your logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress of causes: Miguel: "Even if an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests). Of course, when I said there's a logical contradiction, I meant if it were instantiated in physical reality --something I will apparently have to keep repeating."

Filipino Freethinkers : Beauty, Life, and Death through a Macro Lens: Is there an Intelligent Designer?

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:46 +0000

So...not only have you been inconsistent with Craig's use of the terms, you've contradicted yourself in an attempt to salvage any intellectual credibility. And I get called out by you for whirling and twirling with words, for 'talking, flinging poo and scraping barrel-bottoms', for making 'cheap rhetorical points for not reading what [you] said charitably or with minimal fairness'... M: "LOL." For readers of this site interested in David Hilbert, that quote was, as I've already alluded to, taken from On the infinite, a presentation by the mathematician before the Westphalian Mathematical Society in Munster, a copy of which can be read here: http://goo.gl/kBe1Z. I leave it you readers to judge for yourselves the disparity between Hilbert's approach and Miguel's 'See Hilbert's Paradox'. M: "Set of any physical objects or series of events. The point is that they cannot form an actual infinite. How many times must we repeat this?" What, like, 1 billion apples? Or is that an infinite set of apples? And we can't because...we don't have an infinite set of apples? See XIII's question-begging remark. Your repeating it does not at all entail you understand what is being discussed by either Hilbert or Craig. In fact, you don't understand what is being discussed here, which I shall show—again—in a moment. M: "Actually, I didn't mean anything of that sort. But thank you for that fascinating and irrelevant bit of trivia." If you think this is trivial, you have no business lecturing us about infinity. For christsakes, you even summoned Aristotle at one point... M, at last, on the supposed logical contradiction: "Even if an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests). Of course, when I said there's a logical contradiction, I meant if it were instantiated in physical reality --something I will apparently have to keep repeating." Your late addition of a qualifier (after my pointing out, let's not forget)—'I meant if it were instantiated in physical reality'—cannot save you this time, I'm afraid. (Not that it could or ever did.) This is it? This is your philosophically sophisticated logical contradiction? Excuse me one moment.... Okay, where were we? Ah, your logical contradiction: an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests). You can't wrap your head at this? No wonder. --- Hey, Krauss and Craig! I've got a defeater for the both of ya! Listen to this, yeah. Imagine an infinite set of bananas. Done? This exists in reality, yeah, don't forget that. Now, what if I then ask you to peel of the skin on all of them. As in, ALL OF THEM. In reality, don't forget. Done? Now hear this for the logical contradiction, which David Hilbert correctly points out: He says...that what we should end up with is....still...an infinite number of skinless bananas! Imagine that! I know, right! How could you end up with another infinity when you just subtracted infinity! Preposterous state-of-affairs! So illogical! Checkmate, Infinity! --- I'm done here.