|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A random proof of God
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
And God said, "Let there be heads"; and there was heads. And there was the beginning of a quantum coin toss and there was its end, one Planck time.
Consider (deterministic) causality. In a very simplistic manner, we can symbolize its general workings by
A -> B
That is to say: if the world is sufficiently like A now, then it will be sufficiently like B next. This in fact an amazing mystery, but like most people most of the time, I will here consider it as trivial. I'm hence not particularly concerned about the details of A, B, "now" and "next". What is important to me is rather that this so-called "(deterministic) causality" makes sense to us, indeed, it is what making sense is all about. If I push my car over a cliff, it will fall down and be wrecked. A->B. That is clear enough, and relevant.
Now consider a coin flip. We can symbolize it like this
A -?-> (B or C)
Given a coin flip (A), it's either heads (B) or tails (C). Now, this is odd. It's not really "(deterministically) causal" like the above. Given A, I still know something about what will happen next (B or C), so it is causal. But it is random whether it will be B or C, or to use a technical term, stochastic. While it is of course a common experience as well that random stuff happens, it does not make real sense to us. What makes sense to us is that "it will be B or C", since that is determined causally (if the coin would vanish in thin air we would be much surprised, if it landed stably on the rim we would add that possibility - but our mind is at sea thinking whether it will actually be B or C in a normal coin toss, since we cannot know that).
Along comes so-called "deterministic chaos" to restore sense to our world. The basic idea is this: sometimes what a system will do next can depend very sensitively on how it is now. Balance a straw upright on a table. If this was a vibration-damped lab table in a vacuum, the straw would just remain standing. However, in your living room the table vibrates very slightly and there are minuscule gusts of air. So the straw falls quickly. Furthermore, you have no idea in what direction it will fall, since you are not able to measure those disturbances. In general, there are limits to how precisely one can measure anything. So when one makes any measurement, one always makes some tiny error at least. However, what will happen next for a highly sensitive system is then already known only up to a small error, and what will happen after that with a significant one, then a large one, next it's a huge error - and soon one has no idea anymore what will be happening.
The upshot is is that we can now symbolize that coin flip in a different way
A -> B
? or ?
A' -> C
Thus if we were able to measure everything perfectly, how the thumb is moving, what the air is doing, etc., then we may well be able to predict that this particular throw will be heads, and that other one will be tails. However, since we cannot tell whether it is A or A', due to measurement error, the result appears random 50:50 to us. We have reduced the weirdness of in principle not knowing where things are going to a practical problem of measurements.
This could be the end of that, but it isn't. For there is quantum mechanics, and QM is supposed to be truly stochastic in nature. One has to be careful there though. QM is mostly deterministic, e.g., the Schrödinger equation tells us precisely what will happen to a QM wavefunction with time. It's just that this wavefunction is merely a probability (density) function. Added to deterministic QM is hence a prescription, often called the collapse of the wavefunction. Thus when a measurement is performed, then somehow all this probability is collapsing into a reality. How precisely nobody knows...
Important for our purposes is however the following: one can show - with something called Bell's inequalities, see here for a state-of-the-art experiment - that there are no "hidden variables" determining that outcome. That is to say, for a "quantum coin" we appear to truly have stochastic causality
A -?-> (B or C)
we cannot reduce it (completely) to some "deterministic chaos" as above. Thus the universe stops making sense microscopically. In fact, since in reality our classical world is built on quantum foundations, we should have to say that our sense of things is merely statistical in the final analysis.
I hope with this lengthy introduction I've set the stage for a very simple proof of the existence of God. Take a truly random process, i.e., make it "quantum" to be sure that it is not just some deterministic chaos. Then our problem is that given
A
now, and the causal but stochastic relationship
A -?-> (B or C)
somehow the world must arrive at
B
which we happen to see next. Not C, mind you: we have flipped the (quantum) coin, and for sake of argument let us say it was heads (B) this time, not tails (C). But we cannot understand how
A ... B
can happen. We can only understand some deterministic causal arrow like this
A -> B
Of course, the actual situation could be hellishly complicated, that one arrow could summarize any number of interactions etc., but by construction here no ultimate reason of that form can be given, when all is said and done the situation is random. Is there no way out? Well, yes, there is. Note that I - the author of this - was easily able to determine this relationship
A ... B
That was my choice. Now, I could choose something else just as easily, say
A ... C
Again, no causality connects the (quantum) coin toss with this time tails (C). No causality within the world of the coin toss, that is. As it happens, that world is imaginary in my (and your) head, so I can without any difficulty whatsoever create one option, or the other, or indeed the "miracle" of the coin disappearing if I want
A ...
There, it just happened. Note that my creative causality is of a different kind. It side-steps the requirement of some "world-internal" rule that would lead from A to B (or C, or nothing, ...). What actually happens is "world-external", not located within the imaginative space of my mind, but in my will acting upon that space.
My "random proof of God" is now obvious, I assume. If there are truly random phenomena in our world, they cannot be "world-internally" determined, at least we cannot understand how that could be. Whereas if we assume that they are determined "world-externally", by some creative will acting upon our world, then we can understand that true randomness can be seen in the world. And this creative will we call God.
Obviously the counter-argument exists that "we just cannot (not 'do not') understand" how nature realizes randomness, how the (quantum) coin knows which way to actually fall. That is fine, but it clearly is a fundamentally non-rational claim. Whereas my explanation in terms of God may not be satisfying as far as God is concerned (I cannot explain why God chooses this or that), but it is a rational claim about the actualization of randomness.
Note further that it is not fair to say that I've merely hidden the non-rational randomness within that word "God". For I have not explained the stochastic actuality of the world by another stochastic entity. I have rather explained it by God's will. At a minimum then this argument reduces two mysteries (randomness and free will) to aspects of one mystery, free will.
If my argument holds, then the upshot is that Einstein was both right and wrong. He was right in being deeply suspicious about the claim of QM that true randomness exists (Einstein was one of the champions of the "hidden variables" idea). He was wrong however (as demonstrated by Bell's inequality experiments) to say this:
quote:
Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926) in "The Born-Einstein Letters" translated by Irene Born, Walker and Company, New York, 1971 (via Wikipedia):
Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.
Quite to the contrary: If the world can be understood rationally, then God must play dice.
And in fact, since all the world is built on quantum foundations, we get here a "modern" sense of what it means that God keeps the world in existence by continued creation. God constantly decides by His will what quantum randomness becomes actual.
And God said, "Let there be tails"; and there was tails. And there was the beginning of a quantum coin toss and there was its end, a second Planck time.
[ 27. December 2014, 18:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Maybe I slept through it, but was there actually a proof of anything in that?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No.
There was an unnecessary proliferation of entities though.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I follow you through the "We have to think of it as deterministic" bit because I've read my Kant.
I have problems where you make the move
1. A>BvC
2. B
Therefore A>B
I know of no logical proof that can get us from A>BvC to A>B. So I can't see how your argument works.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I follow you through the "We have to think of it as deterministic" bit because I've read my Kant.
I have problems where you make the move
1. A>BvC
2. B
Therefore A>B
I know of no logical proof that can get us from A>BvC to A>B. So I can't see how your argument works.
Zach
I think it goes:
1. A>BvC
2. God>B
Therefore A>B, and furthermore, God. But I'm not entirely sure...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
A nice piece of work. The only point I'd query on first reading is where you move from God's will to free will - I don't see any necessary equivalence there.
I guess from Martin's and Zach's reactions they don't recognise the 'amazing mystery' you referred to at the beginning.
[ 08. November 2010, 20:31: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930
|
Posted
I'm sure it's terribly impressive, but I don't have the stamina to read through it.. oh well, I guess I will have to stay unsure
Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Okay. So, now you've proven logically He exists, how do you explain why He's such a shit?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I follow you through the "We have to think of it as deterministic" bit because I've read my Kant.
I have problems where you make the move
1. A>BvC
2. B
Therefore A>B
I know of no logical proof that can get us from A>BvC to A>B. So I can't see how your argument works.
Zach
I take the -> of IngoB's formulae to be that of causality, not logical implication.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not from the Clapham omnibus, no Dave. The relevance of it. That stuff changes is an amazing mystery, yeah. And ? Am I missing something ?
This random 'proof' of God is not transferable.
It is no such thing.
Ever so clever as it undoubtedly, obviously is, this emperor has no clothes.
His bollocks are exposed Dave.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
You are assuming that the world has to be rationally understandable. Maybe it can't. Or maybe it can but not by us.
I agree that the randomness at the heart of Quantum Mechanics can be somewhat disturbing.
But why is a being that makes the decisions instantaneously for each of the roughly 10 to the 84 particles in the observable universe a good explanation for the randomness in nature?
Assuming it needs explaining.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I have problems where you make the move
1. A>BvC
2. B
Therefore A>B
I know of no logical proof that can get us from A>BvC to A>B. So I can't see how your argument works.
Firstly, a necessary condition of the argument is that no other deterministically causal explanation exists for a truly random A-?->(B or C). If A merely provides a possibility of "B or C" (for example A could be the experimenter setting up a quantum coin toss, and his lab as it is being set up), but then it is actually "D->B" which selects B from the possibilities, then I would consider D to be deterministically causal (in the circumstance of A).
Secondly, my argument is not based on logic but on physics (or perhaps "metaphysics", though I'm sticking as close to experiment as the physical concept of the "collapse of the wavefunction" does, which is usually considered a part of physics). In fact then, B happens. That's not a logical deduction itself, rather I operate with (hopefully) logically consistent argument on that fact.
Thirdly, it is precisely the whole point of my argument that there is no "world internal" explanation of the actualization of randomness: B does not follow "logically" (causally, really), but it does in fact follow (actually). The basic argument is hence: True randomness is inexplicable in this world. Yet true randomness exists. Therefore either the world is inexplicable, or an explanation exists apart from the world. The latter option we call God. The former is a viable choice, but one which I would find rather ironic for most atheists.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The only point I'd query on first reading is where you move from God's will to free will - I don't see any necessary equivalence there.
In contrast, I'm not sure what an "non-free will" is supposed to mean, in particular when one refers to God. But this is a side issue here, so I'll leave it at that for now. Perhaps that's something to discuss in a different thread?
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay. So, now you've proven logically He exists, how do you explain why He's such a shit?
On the assumption that this is a serious question: Apart from hope (or, if you like, "wishful thinking") I know of no argument that shows that God is not a shit. Based on Christian revelation, however, some reasonable hope can be maintained that He smells of roses. I at least certainly can offer no more than that.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
You are assuming that the world has to be rationally understandable.
Nope. I'm saying that if it is rationally understandable, then it requires God as explanation. The fun bit is that it is usually believers (of various kinds, not necessarily Christian) who are OK with a universe that is fundamentally non-explicable, whereas it is atheists (or at least the so-called "brights") who typically insist on an explicable universe. Contra the latter, my point is that a basic, "experimentally proven" feature of the universe is best explained by God.
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But why is a being that makes the decisions instantaneously for each of the roughly 10 to the 84 particles in the observable universe a good explanation for the randomness in nature?
Simply because any explanation is better than no possible explanation, if indeed the explanation offered matches known facts and some explanation is sought.
[ 08. November 2010, 21:40: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That stuff changes is an amazing mystery, yeah.
Sure, it's stating the obvious, from a disinterested, tomorrow we may die point of view. But so is every last bit of academic theology, if we happen to be able to be familiar with whatever reality is being considered with respect to God.
quote:
And ? Am I missing something ?
Interest in God the reality, perhaps? If your interest is only from a personal salvation point of view, poking holes in other people's theology might provide reinforcement for your assumptions about what you find obvious. But that's mostly trivially easy. Where this kind of exercise might lead could be uncomfortable. It might convince us we are wrong.
quote:
This random 'proof' of God is not transferable.
Transferable to what? It's a standalone connection of God's will with reality as being described by contemporary science. What do you want to transfer it to?
quote:
this emperor has no clothes.
That's bluster, Martin, unless you can show errors in the OP's logic. The result may not interest you, but that doesn't mean it's not a result.
[ 08. November 2010, 22:20: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
That's the great thing about symbolic logic- it can sum up arguments about anything and examine the soundness of the argument itself. Which is why there is no way to get from A>BvC to A>B.
Leaving that behind, it seems to me you are falling into the same mistake as "deterministic chaos." You seek to explain randomness by denying it. "It's not random- God did it."
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You're having a laugh Dave.
"It's a standalone connection of God's will with reality as being described by contemporary science."
No it isn't.
That's Kant for you.
There are NO net arguments for God in 'reason', ALL of the arguments of science are against.
No connection has been established as Ikkyu sees.
Say it has all you like.
It hasn't.
It hasn't has the day, the inertia, needs more WORK to be overcome (what a perfect analogy for what Spongiform atheism has to do up against orthodoxy).
Make risibly spurious claims about the reality of God to you transcending mine all you will.
God is no less real to me and the parsimonious reality of God including intrinsic, fundamental, hypostatic, essential indeterminism has yet to be antithetically refuted or even equalled.
The abstract - thought - and the concrete - creation - are fuzzy all the way up.
I could be wrong on what ? That the future has happened ? That's not even wrong.
God does NOT decide what becomes actual EXCEPT by will. Exceptionally. He could not care less what would become actual if He didn't. He does NOT decide what the spin of electrons is, whether it will rain on me tomorrow based on the configuration of the Earth and Sun now or who will be damned in eternity from now or even conceived, during the endless increase of His government.
He can't. They are meaningless questions.
As the incomparably brilliant IngoB says, there are no hidden variables: there are no 'ideal' Platonic electrons.
God's will IS the - indeterminate - reality described by contemporary science. He's holding nothing back, there is nothing between it and Him. It IS Him.
He has NO CHOICE in the ... matter. But to supervene. To create life, mind. To save.
Again, am I MISSING something here ? I MUST be surely.
Something intellectualist ?
Help IngoB stoop to conquer will you ? He REFUSES to do it for me.
Which makes me think he can't.
Intellectually.
Doesn't have the teaching ability.
The metaphors. The analogies.
Just the Jungian certainty.
I can understand that.
The fact that you guys all agree it's brilliant and explains everything or will do just around the corner sure does mean I don't understand something.
;0)
I won't be following you as we haven't even actually started.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
There are NO net arguments for God in 'reason', ALL of the arguments of science are against.
Oh, Lordy, do I imagine I will regret asking this but...
Martin... which scientific arguments are against God again? I mean, name one or two.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
This reminds me a little bit of the Chewbacca Defense (South Park).
It also reminds me of the many attempted "proofs" of God via Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
You seem to rely on stochastic processes not making sense and being inconsistent with how we perceive reality, but don't show why things need to match our perception of reality. I think history of the last few centuries (and QM) show exactly why things often *don't* make sense to us, but are how things work. Why is this so very different from the others?
And while you ostensibly show that something is needed "outside" the system (assuming your need for one is sensible and just), you have not met the huge burden to call this thing "God." How do we prove the usual omniscient, omnipresent, timelessness, singular in nature, etc, etc, traits that people give God? How do we know there is interaction in the way we think of things? (Or is the voice in the air just a manipulation of probabilities for vibrations, etc?) How were things created, if they were?
I'm comfortable w/ the possibility of a God, and don't expect I'll ever come to a decision either way for one. It's the specifics that I'm so very uncomfortable with.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Ingo, does that not negate, or at least ignore, chaos theory (which surely has to be more than a theory at this point in any case)?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But why is a being that makes the decisions instantaneously for each of the roughly 10 to the 84 particles in the observable universe a good explanation for the randomness in nature?
Simply because any explanation is better than no possible explanation, if indeed the explanation offered matches known facts and some explanation is sought.
But aren't you then in danger of providing a God of the gaps? If in 20 years science comes up with an explanation for what is currently inexplicable and upon which your proof rests, then out the window it goes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
But it's already out the window. Chaos is the gap.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
To be fair to IngoB's original argument. He does not say that the randomness in classical systems is a problem (That would be Chaos). The randomness he takes issue with is that in quantum systems.
The difference as IngoB correctly pointed out is that one is random in practice because we can never know all of the variables in they system well enough to account for them (That's Chaos). But in theory if we had enough data to enough significant figures we could predict the randomness out.
Quantum systems on the other hand are random in a way that can never be eliminated by more data.
But defining "God" as that which explains the randomness at a quantum level, even if you find that explanation both satisfactory and necessary.
Is quite far from any definitions of the Christian God I have heard before, as already pointed out by pjkirk.
And a God that "designs" a universe that has to be micromanaged to that incredible amount of detail, Is just not a very efficient God. ( Remember he has to tell more than 10 to the 84 particles exactly what to do at every instant)
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Is "efficient" one of the necessary or even expected properties of God?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is "efficient" one of the necessary or even expected properties of God?
Wisdom is, which makes efficiency a not unreasonable inference. Not a great one, since you can argue around it, but if God is as smart, wise, etc, as people say he is, the situation as Ikkyu describes it is pretty silly.
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is "efficient" one of the necessary or even expected properties of God?
Wisdom is, which makes efficiency a not unreasonable inference. Not a great one, since you can argue around it, but if God is as smart, wise, etc, as people say he is, the situation as Ikkyu describes it is pretty silly.
Doesn't follow. Maybe it's the way God chooses to be intimately related to his universe rather than aloof.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is "efficient" one of the necessary or even expected properties of God?
Wisdom is, which makes efficiency a not unreasonable inference. Not a great one, since you can argue around it, but if God is as smart, wise, etc, as people say he is, the situation as Ikkyu describes it is pretty silly.
Doesn't follow. Maybe it's the way God chooses to be intimately related to his universe rather than aloof.
If this is intimate, I'd hate to see his aloof. Oh wait, I'm not sure I could tell the difference.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
What about if the coin lands on its edge? Rare, but it's been known to happen . . .
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
God is no less real to me and the parsimonious reality of God including intrinsic, fundamental, hypostatic, essential indeterminism has yet to be antithetically refuted or even equalled.
To quote Numpty from another thread, it depends what you mean by God. What do you mean by God, Martin?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
What about if the coin lands on its edge? Rare, but it's been known to happen . . .
That's just God showing off.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
we cannot reduce it (completely) to some "deterministic chaos" as above. Thus the universe stops making sense microscopically. In fact, since in reality our classical world is built on quantum foundations, we should have to say that our sense of things is merely statistical in the final analysis.
I hope with this lengthy introduction I've set the stage for a very simple proof of the existence of God. Take a truly random process, i.e., make it "quantum" to be sure that it is not just some deterministic chaos.
I agree with others that this isn't really a proof for the existence for God but it is a rational argument offering evidence for some kind of prime mover.
However, I'm still completely confused (both on this thread and on the Calvin thread) exactly what Martin's objection is. He rejects both indeterminism and determinism. All that I see left is genuine chaos.
As Ingo says, the universe makes sense at a macroscopic level. Martin's position, as I understand it, makes all life entirely meaningless and random.
Now, I'm willing to concede that Martin's posts are consistent with this position but I can't see any evidence that anyone else is.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
What about if the coin lands on its edge? Rare, but it's been known to happen . . .
That's just God showing off.
Is this part of his "intimate relations?"
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
What about if the coin lands on its edge? Rare, but it's been known to happen . . .
That's just God showing off.
Is this part of his "intimate relations?"
Can I plead the 5th here?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can I plead the 5th here?
I don't see how it actually applies, but feel free to traipse on to other threads and leave this unanswered. I couldn't stop you anyways.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You're taking this far too seriously. "God showing off" wasn't meant to be anything more than a grin.
[eta missing ]
[ 09. November 2010, 03:08: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're taking this far too seriously.
I get accused of that a lot. My reply was meant to (ham-handedly, I guess) prod a reply to my previous statement about aloofness. Perhaps I'll start another thread about it.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'd never have guessed that's what you were driving at (obviously).
Your "aloof" comment seemed to me to go off in the direction of apologetics/problem-of-evil, a tangent to this thread, and a subject on which I have almost nothing to say.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
A coin isn't A that then --> B or C. It is B/C that changes to C/B or stays as B/C. 'cept when it lands on edge.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That's the great thing about symbolic logic- it can sum up arguments about anything and examine the soundness of the argument itself. Which is why there is no way to get from A>BvC to A>B.
As I've discussed above: (1) your statement is plain wrong (physics cannot be reduced to logic alone), (2) as far as it is right, it supports my argument (that B does not follow in a random case is precisely my point).
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Leaving that behind, it seems to me you are falling into the same mistake as "deterministic chaos." You seek to explain randomness by denying it. "It's not random- God did it."
You have not demonstrated any mistake in my argument. Furthermore, what you say is simply not true. To the contrary, my argument is that if something is truly random in the world then it can be understood only by God acting upon the world. Randomness is hence a question of the reference frame. Throw a (quantum) coin and it will be 50% heads and with 50% tails, and there is no "world internal" way of telling which way it is going to go. It is truly random by all measurements that one performs, indeed, by all thinkable experiments. This is in no way hindered by saying that God causes this randomness, precisely because God's causation is not "world internal". It is is of a different kind.
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
You seem to rely on stochastic processes not making sense and being inconsistent with how we perceive reality, but don't show why things need to match our perception of reality. I think history of the last few centuries (and QM) show exactly why things often *don't* make sense to us, but are how things work. Why is this so very different from the others?
Of course nothing has shown why things do not make sense to us. Otherwise they would make sense to us then. Science operates successfully upon refusing "why" questions of a particular kind. Getting used to leaving certain questions alone is however not the same as obtaining answers.
Anyway, what I do here is to pit "rational realism" against science, by taking a hard look at something that is generally taken for granted or being glossed over: randomness. You can solve this dilemma by grabbing one of its horns, but you cannot (in my opinion, and no counter-argument has been given) hold onto both horns. I've stated several times now that it is valid choice to abandon "rational realism". However, few atheists argue "I'm a non-rational operationalist, hence I can claim validly that God does not exist." The force of my dilemma is a leveling of that high ground upon which "brights" in particular like to stand.
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
And while you ostensibly show that something is needed "outside" the system (assuming your need for one is sensible and just), you have not met the huge burden to call this thing "God." How do we prove the usual omniscient, omnipresent, timelessness, singular in nature, etc, etc, traits that people give God?
I can simply call this "world external" power "God". Furthermore, that this "God" is compatible with say the Christian God, in the sense that the Christian God could fulfill this function, is obvious. That this "God" must have other specific features (which would make the Christian conception more plausible), that would indeed require more argument. Such arguments are of course out there, but I'm not interested in them here. If I can successfully show that there is a "God", unless one is willing to abandon "rational realism", then I'm done here.
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
How do we know there is interaction in the way we think of things? (Or is the voice in the air just a manipulation of probabilities for vibrations, etc?)
I can offer no argument for reality that goes beyond appeal to a sense of reality that I'm sure you in fact share. One has to start somewhere, and if we can deny that things are, then frankly there is nothing left to argue with.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Ingo, does that not negate, or at least ignore, chaos theory (which surely has to be more than a theory at this point in any case)?
I've discussed deterministic chaos at length in my OP. My assumption is that it has been proven - by experiments on Bell's inequality - that nature can be random in a more fundamental way than a positive Lyapunov exponent.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But aren't you then in danger of providing a God of the gaps? If in 20 years science comes up with an explanation for what is currently inexplicable and upon which your proof rests, then out the window it goes.
One has to make a distinction here. My objection to true randomness cannot be touched by physical experiment as such. As long as science in some way or form claims that there is indeed true randomness, my argument retains its force. What could happen however is that science shows that true randomness does in fact not exist in nature. Then indeed my argument would fail. However, my objection to true randomness is not original in the context of science (as mentioned, Einstein raised it and indeed Schrödinger's cat was another dig at it), but science has rather forcefully asserted that it exists over the last eighty years. This includes very hard experimental evidence. So the situation is more that science is enthusiastically opening this particular "gap for God".
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
And a God that "designs" a universe that has to be micromanaged to that incredible amount of detail, Is just not a very efficient God.
Maybe. But it is of course the classical Christian doctrine that God is continuously keeping all the universe in being. The Christian God is not a Deist watchmaker. Furthermore, nobody but Dave Marshall spotted the bigger picture. Causation as such is utterly mysterious. I'm just going on about randomness because there it is much easier to make people feel the strangeness. There's however nothing trivial in A -> B. Why would A become B? To say that it is "the rule" does not provide an answer, it is just a description. So really I would argue that God is needed as "CPU clock" of the universe anyway, whether A-?>(B or C) ... B or A -> B, God is needed for the "next step" every Planck time. However, I prefer to work with randomness here because it is easier to argue with common sense rather than against it.
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
What about if the coin lands on its edge? Rare, but it's been known to happen . . .
I discussed that in the OP...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Orthopaedics, no doubt.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Big Oil
Shipmate
# 15713
|
Posted
quote:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
...
It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Douglas Adams
--------------------
"The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume." - Tony Hayward
Posts: 160 | From: bp | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay. So, now you've proven logically He exists, how do you explain why He's such a shit?
On the assumption that this is a serious question: Apart from hope (or, if you like, "wishful thinking") I know of no argument that shows that God is not a shit. Based on Christian revelation, however, some reasonable hope can be maintained that He smells of roses. I at least certainly can offer no more than that.
It was a semi-serious question, though tangential. I was trying to say something about the problem of logical proofs of God’s existence being that they beg pretty awful questions about His existent nature. It’s a Pandora’s box of worms.
But my vote for OP of the Year, nonetheless.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
My understanding is, the architect is not a general contractor and couldn't care less if you can wield a compass or square. That is your concern.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I was trying to say something about the problem of logical proofs of God’s existence being that they beg pretty awful questions about His existent nature. It’s a Pandora’s box of worms.
Sure is. I've never understood the "comfy" view of God. If God is your couch, then one day that couch will swallow you, chew you through and through, and spit you out half-digested. Yet one has to take a stand, that is the human thing to do - and the trinity of Sunyata, Chaos and Cthulhu provides no hope to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But my vote for OP of the Year, nonetheless.
Thank you. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I may have missed this part of the "proof", but why exactly is saying 'it's random' or 'we can't know in advance which way the quantum coin will come down' not rational?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Christian God is not a Deist watchmaker. Furthermore, nobody but Dave Marshall spotted the bigger picture. Causation as such is utterly mysterious.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Only limited internet access for a few more days, but thanks for this fascinating thread.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I may have missed this part of the "proof", but why exactly is saying 'it's random' or 'we can't know in advance which way the quantum coin will come down' not rational?
Just to be clear, it is rational to say "After throwing the (quantum) coin, either heads or tails will result." The non-rational moment is precisely in the transition from the coin being thrown to (say) heads resulting. Rational means "agreeable to reason", and with reason I mean "mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences". But I cannot conclude, judge or infer from the (quantum) coin toss that in fact heads results. Neither can anybody else, if the toss was truly random.
A stream of consciousness representation of reason tracking observed events would be a bit like this: "... and this causes that, and that causes this, and next it results in this and now ... hang on, random event, wait for it ... ok, we have that result, apparently ... but that causes this and this causes that and next ...". This break in the tracking of causality performed by reason is what I'm talking about. "It just so happens" is simply no explanation, but merely a descriptive affirmation, and there is no purchase for the rational mind in that.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Just to be clear, it is rational to say "After throwing the (quantum) coin, either heads or tails will result." The non-rational moment is precisely in the transition from the coin being thrown to (say) heads resulting.
It may be that I'm missing some high-level thinking here, but if there are a finite number of possibile outcomes arising from a given action, each equally possible, then why does there have to be a mechanism for explaining why any given result actually happens?
After the event, is "the coin was tossed and the result was heads" not a rational enough explanation?
quote:
Rational means "agreeable to reason", and with reason I mean "mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences". But I cannot conclude, judge or infer from the (quantum) coin toss that in fact heads results.
You can do so after the fact, because the result is observable. As for why it resulted in heads? Because it had to result in either heads or tails, and this time it came down that way round.
quote:
A stream of consciousness representation of reason tracking observed events would be a bit like this: "... and this causes that, and that causes this, and next it results in this and now ... hang on, random event, wait for it ... ok, we have that result, apparently ... but that causes this and this causes that and next ...".
So you're trying to track causality through everything that has ever happened? Why?
Besides, it's not a truly random event. There is a finite number - in this case two - of possible outcomes, which have known effects. We're not standing around without a clue what will happen - we know that the result has to be either H or T. Why, oh why, do you maintain that we have to know exactly what caused any specific individual result?
quote:
This break in the tracking of causality performed by reason is what I'm talking about.
I don't see a 'random' choice between a finite number of possible outcomes as a break in causality. The coin being tossed is what caused it to land on heads, even if next time the coin is tossed it lands on tails. The causality is there for all to see - what isn't there is the ability to predict future events based on those that have already happened.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
What about if the coin lands on its edge? Rare, but it's been known to happen . . .
That's just God showing off.
If I follow IngoB's argument, I think it's really God not paying attention...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
if there are a finite number of possibile outcomes arising from a given action, each equally possible, then why does there have to be a mechanism for explaining why any given result actually happens?
After the event, is "the coin was tossed and the result was heads" not a rational enough explanation?
Of course it's rational after the observing event, but QM tells us that the result being observed is determined by the observation, not by itself. Until then, the (quantum) coin is both heads and tails.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
