Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan,

I have time only for a brief reply. First I was not hell-bent on finding some contradiction to nail you with. To ignore the one you left in your post I would have to walk around it about half a mile to avoid running over it. As to the validity of the contradiction I’ll leave that to others who read this post, as I was not expecting any retraction or admission on your part.

All you have to do is read what I wrote, which was the opposite of what I claimed. Good luck convincing anyone else.

As you agreed earlier whether I employ MN on something created by design or something of a known natural origin I should still expect successful results.

Why? First, the Design hypothesis makes no valid prediction about the nature of reality. It cannot, since we know nothing about the Designer. Iders claim it does, but they have no evidence to back up their claims; they just say "things are, cuz that's the way they are." All universes are compatible with Design.

A second problem with this is that, while it is quite true that many scientists thought they were searching for god's laws (indeed, that is still a metaphor for scientific discovery in physics), the paradigm they used was based on the machine as a model of nature. That understanding is based on specific historical developments that have little to do with Christianity. In other words, the scientists simply reconfigured theology to conform to their mechanistic expectations, and reinvented god as well as the natural universe. A clearer case of humans inventing gods could hardly be imagined.

As for my "agreement" earlier, it was my way of pointing out the uselessness of Design as a scientific framework. Even if for some mad reason everybody suddenly adopted Design as a cause, it would change nothing, because Design explains nothing.

So why should I think it has validated my assumption of naturalism? If I came across 50,000 deaths of natural causes I could adopt the philosophy that all deaths are natural causes. If so no matter how painfully obvious design evidence might be I would explain that away and construct natural causes just the same. I also think your premise is false. Scientists could continue as they had for many years assuming the ultimate origin of things is design by a creator and have just as much if not more success. Would that be a vindication that my brand of theism is correct? Not to atheists I am sure.

Unfortunately scientists cannot continue with the philosophy of Design by a Creator. If you think about it, Design implies that at some point scientists will hit a limit where there will be a signpost "NO FURTHER: EVERYTHING PAST HERE IS CREATED." But of course, no such place actually exists. Design is a god-of-the-gaps argument. It remains possible only while certain aspects of cosmology remain unexplained.

Bottom line I will revisit this issue. I may even end up reading some of the books on your list. I will keep an open mind and if I am wrong I will retract my statements and publicly admit my mistakes. If I am right or partially right I will let you decide what to do.

I am delighted to hear that you will read some of the books on my list. Also try Metacrock's. I have little fear of you being proved right, though.

Vorkosigan

Jobar

Andrew, I think that you are trying to make the point that we hold some sort of faith in metaphysical naturalism as if it were some sort of absolute and final answer. No! All the atheists I know are quite pragmatic- we go with what works. If you can present a system- any system at all!- that weilds more explanatory power than MN, I'd say that most of us will go with your system and not cling to MN. All you need do to convince us is show where your system succeeds and MN fails. But until you can demonstrate the superiority of your metaphysic, we will continue to accept MN. We are under no illusions that we have the absolute and final answers which explain the nature of reality (or the reality of nature, as the case may be). Can you say that- or, if not, show us these absolute and final answers? I have yet to see them!

Vorkosigan

As expected, none of the atheists were pointing out the apparent contradiction as they would if it were a Christian statement of faith.

What apparent contradiction was that?

I have been on these boards for a while and had never seen the topic disussed or even raised so thought it a suitable 'test'.

The mission statement has been discussed many times. I would say that many of us do not approve of it.

I could take issue with some of your arguements and I do think that Vorkosigan has a point regarding your equivocation of 'metaphysical naturalist' and 'atheist' now that he has pointed it out.

That is an old bone of contention with Andrew, and has nothing to with the current argument.

However, this website has aligned the view of metaphysical naturalism with atheism in a strong way by saying that it is the view that the natural world is all that there is and so I think the misapprehension is not entirely your fault. The statement clearly declares that metaphysical naturalism is an atheistic worldview.

Since it is widely regarded as one, there isn't anything wrong with that. It is one of many possible atheistic philosophical positions. Lately I have learned that there are a couple of theistic positions compatible with metaphysical naturalism. Note that metaphysical naturalism is not a worldview, but a philosophical position on the nature of reality.

For this reason, you should not become a scapegoat .. as though the misunderstanding is entirely your fault.

Andrew's misunderstandings are his own.

Vorkosigan has stated that theists can also be metaphysical naturalists but this would only serve to emphasise the misleading nature of this site's mission statement regarding this particular world view and I think you could be forgiven for disagreeing with one person who appeared to be dissenting.

It is rare for theists to be metaphysical naturalists (I know of one only). And I am hardly "dissenting." Many around here do not support the mission statement.

In point of fact, I did not even discuss the mission statement with Andrew, preferring to focus on the problems with his views. Read through my posts if you don't believe me.

I can't see why the blame is being piled on you. Again, another case of unfair treatment IMO.

Again, another case of a theist misreading.

I hope he hangs around too.

Vorkosigan

Pomp

Vorkosigan,

Lately I have learned that there are a couple of theistic positions compatible with metaphysical naturalism.

Really? I'd be interested to hear how that works.

luvluv

Vork (by the way did you use to be turtomn?):

I'm sure all of this is way over my head, and I am inviting insults, but:

"I am asserting that any universe that runs on natural law and selection processes will appear fine-tuned. Fine Tuning is the result of selection processes operating under natural laws. Far from asserting that the laws of nature have to be this way, I am asserting that they can be any way, and still result in a universe that appears Designed."

Yes, but wouldn't most other values for the cosmological constants result in a universe that could not support life as we know it? You might suggest that there could be other forms of life other than the ones we now observe, but we have no more reason to believe in that as we do in Odin and the like since as far as science has shown, no other form of life is possible.

"No, you were making statements about probability. You cannot make statements about probability without a population to run statistical studies on. The lack of other universes supports neither of our points of view, but it does prevent you from making any statements about probability."

Okay, a fella at my job asked me this question the other day: If you had a list of all possible real numbers, and you just picked one, what are the odds of your picking a rational number?

The answer was zero. There are an infinite amount of real numbers. Which is to say, an infinite amount of possible numbers between the number one and two alone.

So, it doesn't seem to me to be intellectually honest to say that one needs to go and observe a bunch of universes in order to say that the odds were slim that the laws of nature fell the way they did. If there really were infinite possibilities for all the cosmological constants at the big bang, the odds are zero that they would turn out to be ANY particular way. (If I'm understanding this correctly).

So anyway you slice it, we are very, very lucky, unless there is some reason why the cosmological constants have to be the way they are.

Andrew-theist said:

"This is really naturalism in the gaps.?"

Vork said:

"No, this is the position that naturalism will solve this problem too, just like all the others."

Isn't that naturalism in the gaps? Is it reasonable to assume that just because you jumped over every hill you have previously encountered, that you'll be able to jump over every other hill you ever encounter? Might there one day be a hill you can't jump? It sounds a lot like the Christian concept of faith.

E_muse

But if the position states that the natural world is 'all that there is', then, as an incomplete model, it is making a truth statement about the universe.

What has become clear to me over this thread is that "we don't know if there is a purpose for the universe", gets relabelled as "The universe has no purpose" and this is what I have queried with Philosoft above.

Your comments above seem to highlight humanity's desire for reliable explanations concerning the universe. This is emphasised by your statement that potential explanations stand or fall upon their 'explanatory power'. I take this to mean that they make 'accurate' statements about the universe that correspond to experience and allow us to manipulate experience. Therefore scientific realism underlies the view.

An accurate knowledge of the universe is the aim of humanity - and ultimately truth about the universe. I would suggest that humans seek truth, not because it is conducive to survival or reproduction, but they seek truth for its own sake.

This is my main contention for the statement on the opening page of this website that states that the world is in no need of an explanation. Everything I've read here from metaphysical naturalists would seem to contradict that assertion. In fact, their devotion to methodological naturalism is with regard to its 'superior explanatory power'.

It has been argued by Philosoft that the explanation being considered 'not needed' is that of purpose. However, he has argued that MN cannot adjudicate over a matter. This is a philosophical consideration. Further, I would say that an incomplete system of thought cannot rule out certain questions as unecessary on the basis that it cannot answer them, especially if the methods it relies upon cannot make any predictions over this. Neither can it rule out attempted explanations concerning questions that it is unable to touch simply on the basis of its explanatory strength elsewhere. This would be an arguement from authority. This is taking into consideration that it has been stated that, "We don't know whether or not the universe has a purpose." and the assertion that methodological naturalism cannot be used to discover whether or not a purpose exists. In conclusion though, a philosophical outlook cannot rule out questions and uphold the avid pursuit of explanatory disciples that should be free to examine all questions.

No, Christianity cannot assert that it has the final answers. 1 Corinthians 13 would be my first rebuttal of such an idea. This is where Paul asserts that, "We know in part and we prophecy in part." He explains that we can only see in a glass darkly and only have partial knowledge.

However, with regard to MN having superior explanatory power, a few comments to provoke debate.

I think that the superiority of inferiority of a position depends upon the type of question being asked. For example, could, methodological naturalism be employed to account for its own existence?

I have already suggested that metaphysical naturalists ultimately cling to MN out of the ultimate desire for an accurate knowledge of the universe. It is held onto because it is the best of an incomplete bunch with regard to explanation. However, it would seem that incomplete explanation is considered better than none at all!

However, MN exists because it gives people a more accurate explanation of the universe. Can MN be employed to discover why people desire a knowledge of the universe in the first place? Ultimately, this is the ground upon which the position stands.

If it can't then, in this regard, it has an explanatory power of zero and possesses zero authority when it comes to evaluating any arguement that may be put forward to answer it. Its explanatory power elsewhere gives it no authority to rule on questions where it has no jurisdiction. This is taken from my conversation with Philosoft above:

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

HRG

That's mathematics. In physics, quantitities do not come with infinite accuracy (which we would need in order to tell if a particular quantity is rational.

That's why it is meaningless to talk about the probability of a single point in the space of "all possible universes". But this is unnecessary; a continuity argument will tell us that there is an epsilon such that all universes with constants which differ from ours by at most epsilon will still support life.

Thus if it is meaningful to speak about probabilities at all (which I doubt, BTW; this has been the subject of a few exchanges on II), we aer always dealing with regions and not single points in the space of all universes.

regards,
HRG.

Vorkosigan

I don't understand it either. But I've heard that Martin Gardner was a theist -- a fideist -- and managed to reconcile the two positions. Perhaps someone who better understands Gardner's position can explain it to us.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

However, MN exists because it gives people a more accurate explanation of the universe. Can MN be employed to discover why people desire a knowledge of the universe in the first place?

You bet. You should explore the field of cognitive science. I'd start with The Adapted Mind.

Ultimately, this is the ground upon which the position stands.

Nonsense. Even if MN failed to provide a framework that explains this, it would hardly destroy MN.

Vorkosigan

Vork (by the way did you use to be turtomn?):

Yes, I decided to adopt a new moniker.

Yes, but wouldn't most other values for the cosmological constants result in a universe that could not support life as we know it?

There are two problems that jump out instantly. (1) life as we know it. Other constants might support other kinds of life. (2) Why is life important? Why is it the "problem" you're attempting to solve or explain? Why not the configuration of the solar system, snowflakes or lightning storms on Jupiter?

You might suggest that there could be other forms of life other than the ones we now observe, but we have no more reason to believe in that as we do in Odin and the like since as far as science has shown, no other form of life is possible.

Science has not shown this! So far we only know one kind of life, that's all.

In any case, the point I was trying to make is this: Fine-Tuning occurs because the laws of the universe make everything in them conform to those laws. No matter what the laws are, as long as any laws exist, any universe will appear to be Fine-Tuned.

So, it doesn't seem to me to be intellectually honest to say that one needs to go and observe a bunch of universes in order to say that the odds were slim that the laws of nature fell the way they did.

Yes, one does. If we knew how the laws were formed, we might also be able to talk about probability. You can only talk about probability if you have comparative data, or if you have data about how things occur. We don't have either for this. Thus, you cannot really say what the possibilities are for formation of a universe like ours. It may be that other constants are possible. It may be that no other constants are possible. Nobody knows. Since nobody knows, Andrew is not in a position to talk about probability.

If there really were infinite possibilities for all the cosmological constants at the big bang, the odds are zero that they would turn out to be ANY particular way. (If I'm understanding this correctly).

No, because we do not know the probability of any single outcome because we know nothing about the process involved. Outcomes are usually biased by some condition or process or rule. For example, there are 20 possible choices for opening moves in a chess game, but if you look at the games of grand masters, they tend to cluster around 3 or 4 realistic possibilities. All are not equally chosen.

So anyway you slice it, we are very, very lucky, unless there is some reason why the cosmological constants have to be the way they are.

I can't agree. We can only say "We are" until we know about probabilities.

Isn't that naturalism in the gaps? Is it reasonable to assume that just because you jumped over every hill you have previously encountered, that you'll be able to jump over every other hill you ever encounter? Might there one day be a hill you can't jump? It sounds a lot like the Christian concept of faith.

Nothing like it. God has never done a thing for anybody, whereas the success of science is something the smart money bets on. Besides, you left out the second half of that comment, where I pointed out naturalistic frameworks exist.

Vorkosigan