Doubting your disbelief?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Anything which is not 'material' in nature.

Define "Material". Would Strings in Superstring theory be considered 'material'? Basically you're saying that if something exists it's material right? If it's not material it can't by definition exist thus nothing 'supernatural' exists?

If you can explain it using non-naturalistic philosophy, and cannot explain it using naturalistic philosophy, then it provides evidence for the "supernatural", doesn't it?

No. Since by your definition 'supernatural' can't exist.

P1: The Supernatural cannot be explained by naturalistic philosophy.
P2: Everything can be explained by naturalistic philosophy.
C1: Therefore, the supernatural does not exist.

This isn't the same argument as before. Premise 1 says that the "Supernatural" can not be explained using naturalistic philosophy and since naturalistic philosophy works with the 'material' or otherwise the 'real' by definition this is correct. Premise 2 then states that everything that can be explained (at all) must be able to be explained by naturalistic philosophy (or else it can't be explained at all). Then you conclude the supernatural doesn't exist.

P3: The existance of any explainable phenomenon which can only be explained by non-naturalistic philosophy negates premise 2.
C2: Therefore, the existance of any explainable phenomenon which can only be explained by non-naturalistic philosophy would provide evidence for the existance of the supernatural.

Why is something supernatural if it can't be explained by naturalistic philosophy? What does 'naturalistic philosophy' mean in your definition? Does it mean everything that 'exists'? This alone would exclude the supernatural from ever existing to begin with.

No. I use materialism in my choice. Pragmatism is a daft philosphy which dicates which beliefs one holds based on how much use they are.

Can you provide evidence the world outside your consciousness exists? Evidence that can't be explained by the whole brain in a vat scenario? No? Then you use pragmatism to assume it to be true to go about your daily life because assuming otherwise would mean sure death.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Because it is a necessary precondition to constructing any consistent body of fact from evidence and inductive reasoning.

Then that's pragmatism. That's how pragmatism is defined.

No.

How's that?

Causally.

Huh?

Certainly. That's why I said they are two different things.

You never said that. You were claiming that a casually closed universe is a necessity for a universe that has a consistent set of rules.

No.

Define "causally closed" then.

Mathematics.

Mathematics? You didn't answer my question. Can the Ekpyrotic scenario of the origin of the universe be confirmed with science or is it worthless? It is after all a theory within physics.

We are still discovering the laws of physics. That doesn't mean that the laws of physics change, merely that we don't know them all yet.

Actually the laws of physics were quite different in the first few seconds of our universe than they are now according to physics.

It means that what we considered a law of physics was in fact merely a special case. Newtonian Mechanics is a special case. So is General Relativity. So is Quantum Mechanics.

Aren't all laws?

Quantum mechanics has events for which there is no cause.

It does? How do you know? Maybe we simply don't know the cause. We can't observe the cause in anyway and it appears to us that there is no cause.

"Quantum fuzziness" is a term you made up.

Really?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007quant.ph..3035M

Quantum fluctuations are an example of something very important: The laws of physics are fundamentally statistical. Which changes nothing of what I have said.

What causes Quantum fluctuations?

No-one uses the term "actio in distans", sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance_(physics)

 

[Taffer]

Define "Material". Would Strings in Superstring theory be considered 'material'? Basically you're saying that if something exists it's material right? If it's not material it can't by definition exist thus nothing 'supernatural' exists?

Yes, and if something does exist, but is not material, then my definition is wrong. But you have to show that it exists, and is not material.

No. Since by your definition 'supernatural' can't exist.

But my definition can be wrong, and the presence of something which is shown to be supernatural negates my definition.

This isn't the same argument as before. Premise 1 says that the "Supernatural" can not be explained using naturalistic philosophy and since naturalistic philosophy works with the 'material' or otherwise the 'real' by definition this is correct. Premise 2 then states that everything that can be explained (at all) must be able to be explained by naturalistic philosophy (or else it can't be explained at all). Then you conclude the supernatural doesn't exist.

Actually, this is just a better wording of my previous arugment, but it doesn't really matter.

Why is something supernatural if it can't be explained by naturalistic philosophy?

Because that's the definition, Dustin. Anything which can be explained by naturalistic philosophy is material. Anything which is not material is supernatural.

What does 'naturalistic philosophy' mean in your definition?

I admit I am using it as a synonym for "scientific philosophy". That is, a combination of materialism and naturalism to with other philosophies. If you want to know more, the wiki pages are a good place to start.

Does it mean everything that 'exists'? This alone would exclude the supernatural from ever existing to begin with.

Anything which exists, exists. I make the assumption that all which exists is material in nature. The existance of something which is not material in nature would negate this assumption, wouldn't it?

Can you provide evidence the world outside your consciousness exists? Evidence that can't be explained by the whole brain in a vat scenario? No? Then you use pragmatism to assume it to be true to go about your daily life because assuming otherwise would mean sure death.

No. I think you need to brush up on your materialistic philosophy.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, and if something does exist, but is not material, then my definition is wrong. But you have to show that it exists, and is not material.

If by definition you say that nothing that is material doesn't exist and nothing that doesn't exist is material how can I?

But my definition can be wrong, and the presence of something which is shown to be supernatural negates my definition.

Except using your definition it's not possible to show anything to be supernatural.

Anything which exists, exists. I make the assumption that all which exists is material in nature. The existance of something which is not material in nature would negate this assumption, wouldn't it?

By your standards everything that exists is material and if it's not material it doesn't exist. How would it be possible to prove anything immaterial or supernatural to you?

No. I think you need to brush up on your materialistic philosophy.

You never answered my question.

 

[PixyMisa]

although existence isn't time-bounded - if one accepts that my now is no more valid than the now of someone located far way in space - as one must to escape a wholly subjective concept of existence, then reality and that which exists encompasses all the events of spacetime - past, present and future are an illusion - albeit a persistant one

No, that's nonsense. Past, present and future are relative.

but as i've said, this removes the burden of proof to the omnipotent, omniscient observer as the objective qualifier of that which exists - and therefore the burden of proof as to whether certain things can be measured in principle is also placed beyond human capabilities.

All that is required for this proof is that the object in question has a well-defined interaction with the universe. Anything at all. Doesn't matter what it is.

That's an operational definition. And unless you can provide an operational definition, any statement of existence is meaningless.

Back to Gertrude's "Will of God" again. I say "Floofies exist."

You would reply, of course, "What the heck are floofies?"

And I say "Floofies give meaning to the universe!"

If you are feeling particularly generous, you might ask how we tell the difference between a universe with meaning and one without. Until I give an operation definition for a property of floofies, my claim is a chain ending in an undefined term, and so doesn't mean anything.

If it interacts, it can be measured. If it doesn't interact, it doesn't exist.

 

[Taffer]

If by definition you say that nothing that is material doesn't exist and nothing that doesn't exist is material how can I?

Except using your definition it's not possible to show anything to be supernatural.

By your standards everything that exists is material and if it's not material it doesn't exist. How would it be possible to prove anything immaterial or supernatural to you?

No, Dustin. My definition is one of my premises. If it is shown to be wrong, then my argument based on it is wrong. It is very simple, Dustin.

You never answered my question.

You would know the answer if you brushed up on your materialistic philosophy. Although I suspect you don't want to know the answer, you are just being argumentitive.

 

[PixyMisa]

of course it's possible! You've already accepted time bounded constraints - so just employing those, our entire civilisation could collapse before we suceed in measuring something that is measureable "in principle."

Maybe that's what you meant by "time-bounded". That's not what I meant, in accepting your term. I mean that to exist, something must exist in time. It's certainly not that you have a day, or a week, or any such time limit; that would be silly. Our civilisation, our species, organic life or any other sort, is entirely irrelevant. All that is required is that it can in principle be measured. No-one has to go out and do it.

If it interacts, it can be measured. If it doesn't interact, it doesn't exist. To make a claim for existence, you must define how the object interacts, otherwise you are simply spouting nonsense.

I can say that unicorns exist... somewhere in the universe. That's a meaningful claim. You might want me to define unicorn, which is fine: I'll define them as sentient equine creatures with white coats, a long silvery spiral horn, and a strange affinity for sexually inexperienced human females.

If you find such a creature, then I'm right. If you don't find such a creature, then maybe they're hiding. But the statement at least means something.

plenty of physicists do make such claims

Name one.

Plenty of physicists are working on models involving multiple additional dimensions. None of these models yet makes falsifiable predictions; essentially, none of them can be related back to the universe. Any claim that such dimensions exist, at this point, would be meaningless.

 

[andyandy]

No, that's nonsense. Past, present and future are relative.

it certainly isn't nonsense - and directly follows from relativity. All that is real is the whole of spacetime - just as we envision all of space as really being there, we should envision all of time as really being there - as really existing too.

This is widely accepted - the above quote is from Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos, the previous one about the distinction between past, present and future being an illusion was made by Einstein.

 

[PixyMisa]

Then that's pragmatism. That's how pragmatism is defined.

If there's only one way to do something, I wouldn't regard choosing that way as pragmatism. I would regard choosing any other way as folly, though.

How's that?

You've conflated evidence and logic, and inverted the relative importance of the construction and testing of hypotheses.

Huh?

You have been consistently mis-spelling that word.

You never said that. You were claiming that a casually closed universe is a necessity for a universe that has a consistent set of rules.

No. That is merely something that is also true.

Define "causally closed" then.

Causally closed does not refer to the cause of the universe; in fact, if the universe is causally closed, such a term has no meaning.

Causally closed means that no event in the universe has a cause outside the universe.

Mathematics? You didn't answer my question. Can the Ekpyrotic scenario of the origin of the universe be confirmed with science or is it worthless? It is after all a theory within physics.

It's mathematics, Dustin. That's the answer.

Neither is true, unless you are a stricter materialist than I. It cannot be confirmed, but is not worthless, as the mathematics involved might give rise to a well-formed hypothesis at some future point.

Actually the laws of physics were quite different in the first few seconds of our universe than they are now according to physics.

No.

The laws of physics were precisely the same. The environmental conditions were different; the laws were identical.

Aren't all laws?

Well, let's avoid a misunderstanding here and refer to the human constructs as theories.

All theories we presently have are indeed special cases. It's not clear that this is necessary, though. A comprehensive quantum theory unifying the four forces would not be a special case; we just don't have one yet.

It does? How do you know? Maybe we simply don't know the cause. We can't observe the cause in anyway and it appears to us that there is no cause.

That's an argument that's taken place in quantum mechanics; your suggestion comes into play in what is known as "Hidden Variable" theories of QM. Most forms of this contradict general relativity, which is rather a problem for them. The fatal problem, though, is that the are either fully consistent with mainstream QM, and thus there is no distinction between them and such events are in fact correctly defined as acausal, or they are different, and therefor wrong, because QM has been confirmed by an immense body of experimental evidence.

Really?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007quant.ph..3035M

Okay, so someone else made up the same term. That's a philosophy paper, by the looks of the extract, not physics at all.

What causes Quantum fluctuations?

Individually, they are acausal. As a class of event, I don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance_(physics)

Right. Read that article, then. As it explains, this does not happen.

 

[PixyMisa]

it certainly isn't nonsense - and directly follows from relativity. All that is real is the whole of spacetime - just as we envision all of space as really being there, we should envision all of time as really being there - as really existing too.

In my following post, I noted that we were using different definitions of "time-bounded", which caused part of the confusion.

Now, as I said, past, present and future are relative. But they have a very real meaning for operational definitions: If your definition refers to an unobserved event that lies in the (relative) past, it is, well, not an operational definition, because you have just said explicitly that it can't be measured, even in principle.

There may well be a sense in which all of time is there, but it's not an operational sense: You can't do anything with it.

Einstein was constructing a theory describing the properties of space-time itself. We are discussing how to construct valid statements of existence of objects embedded in space-time.

 

[andyandy]

Name one.

Physics is full of people who claim that multi-dimension reality is the best way to reconcile the standard model and general relativity - that's the general prevalent opinion within cosmology [Witten, Greene, Kaku 3 of the best known popular proponents]. Kaluza discovered he could derive a theory that contained both electromagnetism and gravity through applying Einstein's general relativity with an assumption of 5 rather than 4 dimensions back in 1919 - so it's hardly new. Kaluza-Klein theories of extra dimensions have a wealth of theoretical data to support them - and these theories are testable in principle - such as the previously outlined inverse-square violation of the gravitational law. Indeed, it would be possible to test string theory itself if we could perfect magnification to the sufficient level to look for ourselves. You're confusing "(1)currently non-testable theories by limit of human capacity" with "(2)non-testable theories in principle by an omnipotent, omniscient observer." Such dimensional theories are (1) but certainly not (2) - and as such they don't meet your criterea for a dismisal of their existence. Indeed, given the theoretical underpinnings it would seem amazing if there weren't extra spatial dimensions - why then is a claim that they exist so ludicrous?

 

[andyandy]

Einstein was constructing a theory describing the properties of space-time itself. We are discussing how to construct valid statements of existence of objects embedded in space-time.

i'm afraid objects embedded in space time are necessarily caught up in any descriptions of space-time - as they are themselves part of it

 

[PixyMisa]

Physics is full of people who claim that multi-dimension reality is the best way to reconcile the standard model and general relativity - that's the general prevalent opinion within cosmology [Witten, Greene, Kaku 3 of the best known popular proponents]. Kaluza discovered he could derive a theory that contained both electromagnetism and gravity through applying Einstein's general relativity with an assumption of 5 rather than 4 dimensions back in 1919 - so it's hardly new. Kaluza-Klein theories of extra dimensions have a wealth of theoretical data to support them - and these theories are testable in principle - such as the previously outlined inverse-square violation of the gravitational law.

That's very interesting - can you give me a cite on that, because I'd be happy to read up on it.

Indeed, it would be possible to test string theory itself if we could perfect magnification to the sufficient level to look for ourselves.

Except that this is impossible in principle, and therefore invalid.

You're confusing "(1)currently non-testable theories by limit of human capacity" with "(2)non-testable theories in principle by an omnipotent, omniscient observer." Such dimensional theories are (1) but certainly not (2) - and as such they don't meet your criterea for a dismisal of their existence.

No.

You're saying that these theories would be testable if the universe were other than the theories themselves predict. That's absurd.

Indeed, given the theoretical underpinnings it would seem amazing if there weren't extra spatial dimensions - why then is a claim that they exist so ludicrous?

I'm not saying they are ludicrous, or even wrong. I'm saying the claims do not have meaning. They contain undefined terms.

 

[PixyMisa]

i'm afraid objects embedded in space time are necessarily caught up in any descriptions of space-time - as they are themselves part of it

And?

 

[andyandy]

And?

your sentence seemed to suggest a false dichtomy - ie that because we were discussing objects, that these were removed from spacetime considerations where time distinction is an illusion. If you don't suggest that, do you accept the removal of time considerations from considerations of existence?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, Dustin. My definition is one of my premises. If it is shown to be wrong, then my argument based on it is wrong. It is very simple, Dustin.

It's a conditional semantic argument. There's no way to "prove" it wrong because of your set definitions. You say that nothing immaterial exists. If something exists then by definition it's material. You ask me to prove that something immaterial exists but in doing so I simply prove it's material since it exists.

You would know the answer if you brushed up on your materialistic philosophy. Although I suspect you don't want to know the answer, you are just being argumentitive.

Can you provide evidence the world outside your consciousness exists? Evidence that can't be explained by the whole brain in a vat scenario? No, of course you can't. Then you use pragmatism to assume it to be true to go about your daily life because assuming otherwise would mean sure death.

 

[andyandy]

That's very interesting - can you give me a cite on that, because I'd be happy to read up on it.

Sure - it's from Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos - which is an exceptional book on the subject of time, space, string theory and cosmology.

You're saying that these theories would be testable if the universe were other than the theories themselves predict. That's absurd.

no i'm not - i'm saying that human capabilities are currently insufficient to test them - that is not the same as saying that they are in principle untestable. If civilisation progresses at its current technological rate, then i would fully expect us to overcome those technological boundaries required to fully test the theories - the verification/falsification of string theory for example simply requires a microscope with a sufficiently powerful lense

I'm not saying they are ludicrous, or even wrong. I'm saying the claims do not have meaning. They contain undefined terms.

- the terms are rigourously defined. What terms do you mean?

 

[PixyMisa]

your sentence seemed to suggest a false dichtomy - ie that because we were discussing objects, that these were removed from spacetime considerations where time distinction is an illusion.

Careful there. Time isn't an illusion. It's a dimension.

If you don't suggest that, do you accept the removal of time considerations from considerations of existence?

No, because objects exist in time.

If an object has zero duration, it is not meaningful to say it exists.

Just back to Kaluza-Klein space for a moment. I have read up on this in the (dim, distant) past, so I hope I understand to an extent: If there is an additional dimension, and gravity extends into that dimension, rather than just the usual four, then as you mentioned, gravity would not strictly follow the inverse-square law. And the variance would be dependent on the size of the additional dimension, right? (I may be conflating that with string theory; I don't know if Kaluza-Klein works the same way.)

Now that's a positive example of an operational definition. If this fifth dimension exists (says the theory) we will see this measurable effect. The claim that such a fifth dimension exists is thus meaningful. It might not be terribly useful, particularly if it can't predict the size of the variance. And of course it might be wrong.

And if the variance is not measurable - if the variance itself is, under all circumstances, smaller than Planck scale, then the claim fails of meaning after all.

But this is overall what I would consider a good and valid claim of existence.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure - it's from Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos - which is an exceptional book on the subject of time, space, string theory and cosmology.

And I think I even have a copy... Here... Somewhere... I've only read a small part of it, I'm afraid.

If civilisation progresses at its current technological rate, then i would fully expect us to overcome those technological boundaries required to fully test the theories

It's not the technological boundaries that matter, it's the nature of the universe. That's what in principle means!

the verification/falsification of string theory for example simply requires a microscope with a sufficiently powerful lense

Look, I realise you put a winky on the end there, but string theory itself tells us you can't build any such thing. You have to have a test which is possible in terms of string theory. Well, you do for a meaningful claim of existence, and you do if you're after confirming evidence. If you're just trying for falsification, a test that is possible in terms of existing theory might be okay.

- the terms are rigourously defined. What terms do you mean?

No, the terms are rigorously consistent. They are not operationally defined. String theory is self consistent, but what predictions does it make as to the nature of the universe? (Predictions that are different to existing QM and/or Relativity.)

 

[andyandy]

Careful there. Time isn't an illusion. It's a dimension.

time distinction - ie between past present and future is...

Just back to Kaluza-Klein space for a moment. I have read up on this in the (dim, distant) past, so I hope I understand to an extent: If there is an additional dimension, and gravity extends into that dimension, rather than just the usual four, then as you mentioned, gravity would not strictly follow the inverse-square law. And the variance would be dependent on the size of the additional dimension, right? (I may be conflating that with string theory; I don't know if Kaluza-Klein works the same way.)

Now that's a positive example of an operational definition. If this fifth dimension exists (says the theory) we will see this measurable effect. The claim that such a fifth dimension exists is thus meaningful. It might not be terribly useful, particularly if it can't predict the size of the variance. And of course it might be wrong.

And if the variance is not measurable - if the variance itself is, under all circumstances, smaller than Planck scale, then the claim fails of meaning after all.

But this is overall what I would consider a good and valid claim of existence.

that's pretty much it - but the remarkable thing is that the variance can be predicted - newton initially proposed the inverse square law to describe how gravitational attraction diminishes as two objects are separated - if you double the distance between two objects, their gravitational attraction will fall by a factor of 4 (2²), triple the distance and the attraction falls by a factor of 9 (3²)

so with each extra dimension, we would see an increase in factors

in four space dimensions, it would become an inverse cube law

double the distance, gravitational attraction falls by 8 (2³
in five space dimensions, it would become an inverse fourth power law

double the distance, gravitational attraction falls by 16 (2⁴
and so on.....


unfortunately, gravitational attraction is so weak realative to the other forces, we have some way to go with the experiments -

when measuring the other 3 non gravitational forces [electromagnetic etc] we can probe down to a billionth of a billionth of a mm (10^-18)

but we've only got as far as one tenth of a mm separation between two objects in gravity tests - and at this level no violation with the inverse square law has been found. But if we were to find a violation, it should tell us precisely how many dimensions there are.....

(if you have fabric of the cosmos this is off p398-400)