en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/3092738 Comments by Pecier Decierdo http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/10/quantum-queries-where-does-the-higgs-boson-fit-in/#IDComment400200430 Thanks for the correction, Andre! Should I say instead that the 4% is the total mass of the other particles of the Standard Model (sans Higgs boson)? I want to avoid calling it "ordinary matter" or "baryonic matter". Thanks again! Thu, 12 Jul 2012 05:18:19 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/10/quantum-queries-where-does-the-higgs-boson-fit-in/#IDComment400200430 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/10/quantum-queries-where-does-the-higgs-boson-fit-in/#IDComment399016911 Saying that the Higgs boson "gives" particles mass is, of course, just a metaphor, and any metaphor taken too far would lead to error. However, I took the risk of using the metaphor for the sake of accessibility. Obviously, the more precise way of explaining the Higgs mechanism is by saying that the massive particle "couples" with the Higgs field, and the strength of the coupling is related to the value of the mass. I gave this explanation in the body of the article. But for the picture, I opted for the less precise but more accessible and briefer metaphor of "mass endowment". I hope you see my point. xD Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:08:04 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/10/quantum-queries-where-does-the-higgs-boson-fit-in/#IDComment399016911 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/04/quantum-queries-wheres-amber/#IDComment397126491 If ever I'll have a daughter in the future, I will name her Lyra. Sat, 7 Jul 2012 02:47:30 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/04/quantum-queries-wheres-amber/#IDComment397126491 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/03/quantum-queries-is-ours-a-clockwork-universe/#IDComment394788053 Miguel, I guess the best reply would be 'wut?' :D Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:46:46 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/07/03/quantum-queries-is-ours-a-clockwork-universe/#IDComment394788053 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/06/08/the-eternal-universe/#IDComment382789840 Hi Miguel, Consider the following statements: (1) Y exists. (2) It is not the case that Y is ontologically posterior to some Z. (3) Y exists necessarily. For the sake of argument, let us agree that statement (1) is true. You believe that when I assert (2), then I am logically bound to assert (3) as also true. Likewise, you believe that the falsehood of (3) logically entails the falsehood of (2). What follows is my justification why I find the preceding line of reasoning unconvincing. If Y = UGM, then I assert the following: T(1) = True T(2) = True T(3) = False. Notice how these assertions do not lead to a contradiction. They also have the added benefit of having valid justifications. The first assertion – the truth of (1) – is backed by scientific evidence and by the mere fact that we can argue about it. The second assertion – the truth of (2) – is suggested by the latest understanding of quantum theory. The last assertion – the falsehood of (3) – comes from the fact that ‘UGM does not exist’ does not lead to a logical contradiction. Given these, I cannot see how your objection to the UGM’s simultaneous ontological non-contingency and logical non-necessity holds up. As best as I can see, if you want to deny the naturalistic origins of the universe, then you must deny the truth of proposition (2). But if that's the case, the falsehood of (2) should be your conclusion and not a part of your premise. Sun, 17 Jun 2012 02:46:07 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/06/08/the-eternal-universe/#IDComment382789840 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/06/08/the-eternal-universe/#IDComment378982010 Hello Miguel, I said: "But does this make the universe ontologically contingent on something else? No, it does not." However, I can now see that I should have said this instead: "But does this make the universe-generating mechanism ontologically contingent on something else? No, it does not." So yes, I agree with your first paragraph. After all, the decay of an atom is still contingent on the decay mechanism, indeterminacy aside. As for your second paragraph, I believe you are again confusing the two senses of 'eternal'. By saying that the universe-generating mechanism (UGM) is eternal, I do not mean to say that it has gone spawning stuff for an infinite amount of time. Instead, what I mean is that nothing can be chronologically prior to the UGM so that there can be no "before" it and that there was never a time when it did not exist. Also, it is easy to imagine that the UGM has constraints that will prevent it from spawning what you would call "patent absurdities". However, the fact that the UGM has constraints does not necessitate anything outside of it to set these constraints. Even if the constraints of the UGM are not logically necessary, if it is ontologically non-contingent then it does not need any explanation outside itself. Tue, 12 Jun 2012 05:22:27 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/06/08/the-eternal-universe/#IDComment378982010 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/06/08/the-eternal-universe/#IDComment378879575 Hi Miguel! I think we all agree now that nothing can be chronologically prior to the universe. However, I believe Garrick has made a strong case in his article that there need not be anything ontologically prior to the universe (or, if you want, to the universe-generating mechanism that spawned ours). Let me digress a bit before expounding that point. Imagine a particular radioactive atom. According to quantum mechanics, it will decay after some time. When? We can never, even in principle, know. All we can ever know is the probability that it will decay at a particular time, beyond that the universe allows us no further knowledge. Now let us relate the quantum randomness of radioactivity to the universe-generating mechanism. What universe will be spawned by the mechanism? Perhaps, if we have a complete cosmology (something we are still very far from having), we can have the probability that the mechanism would spawn our own universe, as well as the probability that it would spawn pink bunnies (yay!). So, is our universe necessary? If the probability that it will be generated by the mechanism is not equal to unity, then the answer is no. I think we all /suspect/ that this is correct. But does this make the universe ontologically contingent on something else? No, it does not. Furthermore, does this make the universe-generating mechanism ontologically contingent on a personal consciousness? Again, it does not. You see, an entity need not be logically necessary (like St. Anselm's God was supposed to be) to be ontologically non-contingent. The universe-generating mechanism might be logically non-necessary (we cannot give a logical answer to why it is the way it is), but it has no bearing on the eternity of its ontology. In other words, it can have existed for eternity (in the timeless sense, of course) and be the way it is without being as true as '3 plus 5 = 8.' Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:38:17 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/06/08/the-eternal-universe/#IDComment378879575 https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/05/01/on-pisay-and-untarnished-truth/#IDComment353069209 I guess it would benefit all concerned if we distinguish between the pseudoscience called 'creationism' and the theological stand called 'theistic evolutionism'; the former is scientifically falsified, the latter is scientifically unfalsifiable. Thu, 3 May 2012 02:58:02 +0000 https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/05/01/on-pisay-and-untarnished-truth/#IDComment353069209 https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/05/01/on-pisay-and-untarnished-truth/#IDComment352946628 "Are you saying that that scientists shouldn't believe in creationism? Or that students who believe in creationism shouldn't be allowed in pisay?" Science is not about belief. The fact of evolution is true whether you choose to believe on it or not. And if you ask me, I do not "believe" in evolution, I know it to be true. So yes, a self respecting scientist should see that creationism is blatantly, absurdly false. It makes no scientific and logical sense and is contradicted by a mountain of evidence. Wed, 2 May 2012 22:36:49 +0000 https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/05/01/on-pisay-and-untarnished-truth/#IDComment352946628 https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/05/01/on-pisay-and-untarnished-truth/#IDComment352944926 Miguel, Is there any kind of creationism that can, in any way, be considered scientifically respectable? Does believing some kind of "old earth creationism" or "intelligent design theory" free one's mind from the mythological and pseudoscientific baggage inherent in creationism? Wed, 2 May 2012 22:33:00 +0000 https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/05/01/on-pisay-and-untarnished-truth/#IDComment352944926 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/07/why-sherlock-should-give-a-damn-about-the-solar-system/#IDComment333955944 Which simply proves my point -- that it would help him a lot to know his astronomy. :D And, btw, I agree that he's a badass. Didn't I make that clear in my opening paragraphs? Sat, 7 Apr 2012 16:43:43 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/07/why-sherlock-should-give-a-damn-about-the-solar-system/#IDComment333955944 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/06/freedom-outside-free-will/#IDComment333949964 [He [Harris] adopts a position, grabs all the arguments pro that position, writes a book and says 'voila, case solved!'] I think you have it the other way around. A good popularizer like Harris starts with surveying the relevant literature. After the survey, he then decides which position he can agree with based on its merits. Finally, he will write a book which gives a popular account of the ongoing debate and, since the he finds one position superior over the others, he will inevitably try to convince his readers of the merits of this position. [scientists, apart from providing information about the brain, have no business in this debate.] The origin of life, the configuration of the universe and the nature of the elements all used to be the within the domain of armchair philosophy. Now, they are well within the orbit of the positive sciences. I agree with Hawking in "The Grand Design" that traditional, armchair philosophy has reached its twilight years. For now, armchair philosophers can still say a lot about the mind because neuroscience is a very young field, but I don't think such state of affairs will last for long. [Lastly, no, intentionality, or the aboutness of thought, actually *proves* mind and brain are not one.] The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy defines intentionality as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs." This does not negate the unity of mind and brain processes in any way. In other words, intentionality does not "prove" dualism. Sat, 7 Apr 2012 16:32:02 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/06/freedom-outside-free-will/#IDComment333949964 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/06/freedom-outside-free-will/#IDComment333938872 "...because causality, you'll agree, can't make sense of the immaterial." Kindly expound this further, Miguel. What do you mean by 'immaterial'? The laws of nature are immaterial. Even the wave functions of quantum mechanics are immaterial, if you use the physical definition. Heck, even causality is immaterial. So, what do you mean by 'immaterial' here? "I'm using it ['intentional'] to mean the meaningfulness of thoughts, or the aboutness of a thought. Crucially different." That does not remove the difficulty, which exists on your part, of reconciling contra-causal free will with the established causal link between neural processes and human behavior. Sat, 7 Apr 2012 16:09:54 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/06/freedom-outside-free-will/#IDComment333938872 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/06/freedom-outside-free-will/#IDComment333926335 Hello Miguel. "Pecier, as a practical matter, we will have to appeal to authority here in a discussion about the brain, mind, and free-will." Why so? And could you please bring these authorities to bear on the problem at hand, namely, the problem of contra-causal free will? It would be helpful to all concerned if, instead of simply saying that Harris's ideas contradict with the ideas of certain authorities on the matter, you cite what these authorities have to say so that we can judge them for their validity. "...but rather that Sam, lets other people do the thinking, and then just popularizes what he thinks of their thinking by writing a book about it. " What is the difference between appealing to authorities on "brain, mind, and free-will" as a "practical matter" and letting "other people do the thinking?" It's true that science popularizers, in general, do not make the discoveries they write about. But that does not mean that they simply let "others do the thinking" for them. It takes a lot of thinking to be a science popularizer, especially when the science involved is as dynamic and fluid as neuroscience. For example, one has to go through all the relevant literature to write a popular science book. And it certainly takes a lot of intelligence to restate jargon-heavy issues in such a way that they could be understood by the general reader. I, for one, salute Harris for being so good at popularizing so esoteric a subject. "Here's a clue: 'research..where..debate..is'" Yup, done that. And methinks the people who favor contra-causal free will in such debates tend to find themselves on the losing end. See what I mean? If you simply appeal to "those debates that have been going on elsewhere," we end up in the stalemate situation where you think your side won and where I think my side won. So it's never helpful to simply assert propositions here without supporting them, because I can do that too. However, if you want a fruitful debate here, then please, at the very least, provide us the relevant links. So please, provide us the relevant links to why you think Harris's arguments against contra-causal free will are wrong so that we can asses their validity for ourselves. Sat, 7 Apr 2012 15:44:56 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/06/freedom-outside-free-will/#IDComment333926335 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/06/freedom-outside-free-will/#IDComment333749681 Hi Miguel. "Sadly for Harris, the philosophers who are in the know..." I seriously hope you are not appealing to authority here. "... and who've been pondering this issue for ages..." Also, I honestly wish you are not implying that the correctness of one's position on a matter is measured by the amount of time one spends thinking about it. I would like to think that we're clear that thinking about a problem for ages does not, by default, make you more correct compared to a person who just mulled over the issue. "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." What are your reasons for asserting this? Sat, 7 Apr 2012 09:48:38 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/06/freedom-outside-free-will/#IDComment333749681 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/02/20/if-catholics-worshipped-satan-would-they-know/#IDComment302472279 [Now to challenge the privation view...] Agreed. [If AT is false, then classical theism will crumble.] This I can't bring myself to agree with. Kindly show me how the falsehood of AT implies the falsehood of classical theism. While we're at it, let me ask: does the falsehood of AT also imply the falsehood of orthodox Christian theology? [You won't just be showing them their God may be evil, you'll essentially be showing that their whole conception of God is FALSE.] I wouldn't use the word false. Rather, I would say that to run the EGC is to challenge the foundations of Thomism which, to me, does not imply the falsification of classical and religious theism. Even if Thomism were wrong, religious theism and Christian theology will survive to bear the brunt of the EGC. Mon, 27 Feb 2012 03:56:02 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/02/20/if-catholics-worshipped-satan-would-they-know/#IDComment302472279 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/02/20/if-catholics-worshipped-satan-would-they-know/#IDComment301776940 Wow, thanks for taking the trouble to copy-paste. Now, you said: [Since on classical theism evil is the privation of good, then evil is ontologically posterior to good. Thus, any demonstration of God's existence would be ipso facto a demonstration of a being that's necessarily anti-thetical to evil, i.e., one that's all-good.] So goes the Anselmian cosmological argument. I wonder, do you subscribe to it or are you merely stating it here as a fact regarding Thomistic Metaphysics? Next, you said: [...the evil god challenge...assumes the privation view, or AT metaphysics, is false. It thusly begs the question right off the bat.] First off, arguing that evolution is wrong because Darwin was wrong is not begging the question. To beg the question is to use the conclusion as a part of the premise. However, the statement "Darwin was wrong" does not imply the falsehood of evolution; in fact, any scientist's being wrong does not imply the falsehood of the scientific theory he proposed. The Darwin-evolution example you gave illustrates a different fallacy which I wish I knew the name of. (I even wonder if this popular fallacy has a name to begin with.) Second, I don't see why challenging the whole edifice of Thomistic Metaphysics via the Evil God Challenge (EGC) is begging the question. Indeed, the EGC is a challenge to the privation view. However, I cannot see where the EGC is assuming its conclusion, its conclusion being that we do not have a valid means of determining the moral character of the creator of the universe. Kindly point out any errors in my reasoning. Sun, 26 Feb 2012 04:58:11 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/02/20/if-catholics-worshipped-satan-would-they-know/#IDComment301776940 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/02/20/if-catholics-worshipped-satan-would-they-know/#IDComment301690636 Hi Miguel. I believe you are arguing that God's will defines what is good, am I right? Therefore, humanist and utilitarian arguments of right and wrong are rendered meaningless because right and wrong can only be defined as implications of God's will, am I still correct? Let me clarify the statements above by way of an example. Consider a humanist arguing that animal cruelty is something that must be prevented because it increases the amount of pain in the world. Can this be a valid moral argument despite the fact that it does not use God in its premise? And what if God gave humans the go signal to have "dominion over the earth and everything in it," would that not render the humanist argument meaningless? Let me give another example. Consider again a humanist arguing for gay rights. The humanist claims that homosexuals must be given the right to raise children because studies have shown that kids raised by homosexual couples are indistinguishable from kids raised by heterosexual parents. Now, what if Catholics come and say that God -- who by the way defines good -- considers homosexuals an abhorrence? Will there still be a sense in the humanist moral argument if the Catholic God exists? If we define good as that which is in accordance with the will of God, then will this not render all of ethics a mere search for what is in accordance with his will, all arguments from empathy and science thereby thrown by the wayside? Sun, 26 Feb 2012 02:10:24 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/02/20/if-catholics-worshipped-satan-would-they-know/#IDComment301690636 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/01/26/deped-drops-science-what-science/#IDComment276573133 What most people fail to comprehend is that science education is values education and that teaching science is also about building character. When you are teaching science, you are teaching not only a way of looking at the cosmos but a way of living in it. You cannot teach science without changing attitudes. Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:36:31 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/01/26/deped-drops-science-what-science/#IDComment276573133 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/12/30/beauty-life-and-death-through-a-macro-lens-is-there-an-intelligent-designer/#IDComment259328284 [The rest of your questions may not be dependent on the first, but they certainly are rendered irrelevant by my answer to it.] I'm sorry Miguel, but I don't really see your point here. What must I say to convince you that (2)-(7) are not invalidated by Hilbert's Paradox? [I don't believe that if some multiverse, or oscillating universe theory were true, then it would undermine a God.] Precisely. That is why you cannot answer the problem of atemporal causation as it relates to God by invoking string theory. And yeah, I also think that string theory is bunk. But who are we to be certain, right? [The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem posits that even if our universe was oscillating, say, it would still need a starting point.] Well, that's true. [The conceptualization of time I'm referring to is the a-theory of time where only present events are real. I don't actually know if this answers your question.] Well, we can work with this view of time (although I'm not sold to it -- it's inconsistent with time as it is understood in relativity theory). Now, how is God's atemporal causation of Being to be explained in this view of time? [As for science "turning out logical in the end", how should I know? Who knows? It seems logical to me now.] What I mean is that the existence of something natural (something that is not God) may prove to be a logical necessity in the end. Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:19:47 +0000 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/12/30/beauty-life-and-death-through-a-macro-lens-is-there-an-intelligent-designer/#IDComment259328284