Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yguy · 04-25-2003, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
The correct answer is "NOTHING does" because there is no cause for the randomness.

And you know this how?

Quote:

You erred in part because you implicitly assume the false premise that all things must be caused. The idea that all things and events must have a cause is part of Newtonian physics (ie for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction), but not of QM.

Rick

I believe there is some unconscious intellectual dishonesty in associating my "assumption" with a paradigm now widely perceived to have been deficient in some areas. The idea that all events are caused is hardly rooted in Newtonian physics; rather it is an integral part of the scientific mindset, in the sense that if a scientist observes a phenomenon he doesn't understand, he naturally wonders why.

Principia · 04-25-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Principia: False dichotomy. Something random could cause itself. Also, you have not shown that what seems logically absurd is in fact logically absurd.

yguy: If you asserted that A = not A, I wouldn't be able to show that THAT was absurd either.

A = not A is in fact a logical fallacy. It does not merely seem that way. But, you have not demonstrated that acausality is in fact logically impossible. This I know.

Quote:

In logic, you inevitably get to the place where you either see it or you don't.

I see. So for you, logic is a matter of faith. Sorry, that's not how I play the game.

Quote:

Principia: What in fact is logically impossible about acausality, yguy? Isn't your God uncaused?
yguy: Yes, but He is not a thing. An electron is.

So? what is the relevance of being a thing with regards to acausality? It is reasonable to say that logical impossibilities cannot exist. If God is acausal, then according to you God is a logical impossibility. It follows logically that God does not exist, according to you.

BTW, where did anybody say that an electron was not caused?

Quote:

Principia: After all, it wasn't too long ago on the geologic time scale that bipedal creatures thought if they walked far enough it seemed logical that they fall off the face of the earth.
yguy: Invalid comparison. There was no particular reason to think that, other than that it was the consensus view at the time.

There was no particular reason to think that people would fall off the earth?

Go look at the horizon sometime, dumbass.

Quote:

Principia: Nothing., since you have only succeeded in devaluing the meaning of "directed." What then is not directed, yguy?
yguy: Nothing, IMO.

Exactly. Being "directed" has no ontological content. It is meaningless. I could have just as easily labeled everything as being jybideguk.

Quote:

Principia: I note that you have not in fact answered my question. Answering a question with more questions goes no where. I repeat again: How would you explore that fundamental nature of randomness in quantum mechanics?

<taps fingers>

yguy: As of now, I haven't the foggiest idea. What of it?

So you personally have no way of demonstrating whether or not a true randomizer is in fact a physical entity. You also have no apparent training in physics. Yet here you are ranting about how physical theories are absurd. Then, I guess you shouldn't whine too much when we accurately label your views as mere armchair philosophizing.

Dr Rick · 04-25-2003, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
If you asserted that A = not A, I wouldn't be able to show that THAT was absurd either.

Anyone who understands basic logic easily could, however. Your failure to learn the fundamentals of logic is part of the reason that you do not understand science.

Rick

yguy · 04-25-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia
I see. So for you, logic is a matter of faith. Sorry, that's not how I play the game.

Actually, it is. You just don't know it.

Quote:

So? what is the relevance of being a thing with regards to acausality?

Don't know that I can tell you that.

Quote:

It is reasonable to say that logical impossibilities cannot exist. If God is acausal, then according to you God is a logical impossibility.

No, because I say all THINGS are caused.

Quote:

BTW, where did anybody say that an electron was not caused?

I was referring to their random motion.

Quote:

There was no particular reason to think that people would fall of the earth?

Go look at the horizon sometime, dumbass.

Why would looking at the horizon compel anyone to jump to the conclusion that the earth is flat?

Quote:

Exactly. Being "directed" has no ontological content. It is meaningless.

"Directed" doesn't suggest a director?

Quote:

So you personally have no way of telling whether or not a true randomizer is in fact a physical entity. You also have no apparent training in physics. Yet here you are ranting about how physical theories are absurd.

Your misrepresentations of my position are becoming tedious.

Quote:

Then, I guess you shouldn't whine too much when we accurately label your views as mere armchair philosophizing.

I couldn't care less what you label them. Just spell my name right.

yguy · 04-25-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Anyone who understands basic logic easily could, however.

Be my guest.

Principia · 04-25-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Principia: I see. So for you, logic is a matter of faith. Sorry, that's not how I play the game.
yguy: Actually, it is. You just don't know it.

More unsupported assertions of what you do know. A pattern is emerging.

Quote:

Principia: So? what is the relevance of being a thing with regards to acausality?
yguy: Don't know that I can tell you that.

I see. Irrelevance compounding on irrelevance.

Quote:

Principia: It is reasonable to say that logical impossibilities cannot exist. If God is acausal, then according to you God is a logical impossibility.
yguy: No, because I say all THINGS are caused.

Which is also irrelevant. The logic of what you say about your God's nonexistence is independent of whether or not all things are caused.

See, let's work it out together for everyone to see:

Code:

yguy's logic Part I:

P1: if X is a thing then X must be caused
P2: X is not a thing
C: X need not be caused

yguy's logic Part II:

P1: if X is logically impossible then X cannot exist
P2: if X is not caused then X is logically impossible
P3: God is not caused
C: God cannot exist

Hint, only part II is logically sound.

Quote:

Principia: BTW, where did anybody say that an electron was not caused?
yguy: I was referring to their random motion.

Who says their motion is purely random? Ever heard of orbitals from high school? Seems to me that their motion is highly constrained locationally.

Quote:

Principia: There was no particular reason to think that people would fall of the earth? Go look at the horizon sometime, dumbass.
yguy: Why would looking at the horizon compel anyone to jump to the conclusion that the earth is flat?

Probably the same force that causes somebody to dismiss the notion of acausality -- abject irrationality.

Quote:

Principia: Exactly. Being "directed" has no ontological content. It is meaningless.
yguy: "Directed" doesn't suggest a director?

Why should it? A director that does everything is just as irrelevant and meaningless. If you want to believe that all of your actions are directed by this director, it is your right. Just don't expect others to follow suit.

Quote:

Principia: So you personally have no way of telling whether or not a true randomizer is in fact a physical entity. You also have no apparent training in physics. Yet here you are ranting about how physical theories are absurd.
yguy: Your misrepresentations of my position are becoming tedious.

As is your evasion of simple questions.

Principia · 04-25-2003, 03:52 PM

Quote:

yguy: No, because I say all THINGS are caused.

Fortunately for the world, things do not work the way you dictate that it has to.

yguy · 04-25-2003, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia
More unsupported assertions of what you do know. A pattern is emerging.

I can support this one. If I do, you won't like it one bit - so I may hold off on it for awhile.

Quote:

Which is also irrelevant. The logic of what you say about your God's nonexistence is independent of whether or not all things are caused.

Hey, I just corrected your mischaracterization of my assertion.

Quote:

yguy's logic Part II:

P1: if X is logically impossible then X cannot exist

Nope. If the negation of any statement is absurd, it is more reasonable to believe the statement to disbelieve it.

Quote:

Hint, only part II is logically sound.

More importantly from my POV, it's not what I said.

Quote:

Who says their motion is purely random? Ever heard of orbitals from high school? Seems to me that their motion is highly constrained locationally.

I'm quite aware of that.

Quote:

Probably the same force that causes somebody to dismiss the notion of acausality -- abject irrationality.

Actually, it would be my view that the same people who believed in a flat earth, would believe in acausality.

Quote:

Why should it? A director that does everything is just as irrelevant and meaningless.

If the director is meaningless, what does that make you?

Quote:

If you want to believe that all of your actions are directed by this director, it is your right. Just don't expect others to follow suit.

I don't. Can't imagine where you got the idea that I expect that.

Principia · 04-25-2003, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Principia: Which is also irrelevant. The logic of what you say about your God's nonexistence is independent of whether or not all things are caused.
yguy: Hey, I just corrected your mischaracterization of my assertion.

It must be sad for you to feel so persecuted. The only reasonable explanation why you are mischaracterized so often is either that you are not truthful about your characterizations or that you never fully explain them.

Quote:

Principia: yguy's logic Part II:

P1: if X is logically impossible then X cannot exist

yguy: Nope. If the negation of any statement is absurd, it is more reasonable to believe the statement to disbelieve it.

Huh?

According to yguy: Pink Unicorns do not have intercourse with yguy's God on a regular basis -- absurd negation of a statement.
Therfore: Pink Unicorns do have intercourse with yguy's God on a regular basis -- "more reasonable to believe to disbelieve it." I guess I am right about the two choices I presented about with respect to your feelings of persecution.

Quote:

Principia: Hint, only part II is logically sound.

yguy: More importantly from my POV, it's not what I said.

Which does not matter. Either acausality is an impossibility or it is not. Here's what you said:

Quote:

Principia: Isn't your God uncaused?
yguy: Yes.

Now you shift the goal post and say that only uncaused things is impossible, but you fail to demonstrate what a "thing" is, and why your God is not. Moreover, this is becoming all about what you say it is. Well, if you want to untangle your own web of contradictions all by yourself, just let me know.

Quote:

Principia: Who says their motion is purely random? Ever heard of orbitals from high school? Seems to me that their motion is highly constrained locationally.
yguy: I'm quite aware of that.

I see. And that is the reason why you used electrons as an example of purely random, uncaused events. Keep pedaling, bro.

Quote:

Principia: Probably the same force that causes somebody to dismiss the notion of acausality -- abject irrationality.
yguy: Actually, it would be my view that the same people who believed in a flat earth, would believe in acausality.

And that has a bearing on the validity of acausality how? People who believed in Christianity in the past were as likely to burn people alive as to believe in God. Is the Xian God therefore a present source of immorality? I guess by your logic it is. On the other hand, my point stands -- the reason people burned at the stake? Abject irrationality.

Quote:

Principia: Why should it? A director that does everything is just as irrelevant and meaningless.

yguy: If the director is meaningless, what does that make you?

Since when did I become the director of all things in the universe? Sorry, I neither covet or am prepared for that role.

Another irrelevant question from you to end a serious of posts that began with an irrelevant question from you. Seemingly appropriate.

yguy · 04-25-2003, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia
It must be sad for you to feel so persecuted. The only reasonable explanation why you are mischaracterized so often is either that you are not truthful about your characterizations or that you never fully explain them.

Some other people, when I have not made myself clear, ask for clarification, rather than jump to convenient conclusions as you do.

Quote:

Huh?

According to yguy: Pink Unicorns do not have intercourse with yguy's God on a regular basis -- absurd negation of a statement.

The statement is not logically absurd.

Quote:

Therfore: Pink Unicorns do have intercourse with yguy's God on a regular basis -- "more reasonable to believe to disbelieve it."

This negation of it IS patently absurd, so it is more reasonable to believe statement 1 than statement 2.

Quote:

Which does not matter. Either acausality is an impossibility or it is not. Here's what you said: Now you shift the goal post and say that only uncaused things is impossible,

Actually, I've maintained that from the time I've been registered here.

Quote:

but you fail to demonstrate what a "thing" is, and why your God is not.

A thing is that which can in any sense be viewed as an object.

Quote:

I see. And that is the reason why you used electrons as an example of purely random, uncaused events. Keep pedaling, bro.

I never said their motion was purely random. Philosoft evidently understood that. Why don't you?

Quote:

And that has a bearing on the validity of acausality how? People who believed in Christianity in the past were as likely to burn people alive as to believe in God. Is the Xian God therefore a present source of immorality? I guess by your logic it is.

Only if you define Christianity as the set of religious dogma held sacred by religious authorities of the day. I don't.

Quote:

Since when did I become the director of all things in the universe? Sorry, I neither covet or am prepared for that role.

Are you just playing stupid, or doing a great acting job?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.