Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[Plasmatic]

Ah, but "god" does not need to stop you or force you; you are assuming that being able to make a choice gives you power, but note that that power could come from "god."

If "god" gave this power to men he did so by self limiting his own which by definition makes he/she/it non-omnipotent.

Evil is by definition that which goes against the dictates of "god

Absolute nonsense. Value significance has nothing to do with the invalid concept of "god".

[bboyer]

and (drumrolls) 2+2=4. Theres your absolute.

Hey, not so fast with the absolutes. According to the Inca, I think it was, 2+2 obviously equaled 5.

(A 2-knot rope + a 2-knot rope = a 5-knot rope)

2 + 2 = 5 actually does compute, for large values of "2"

("2" is an abstraction of reality that exists only in the mind, which denotes something in reality that is between 1 and 3; if there are two such values that happen to be closer to 3 than to 1, then the result could very well be 5. )

What [political] office or [academic] position are you running for?

[webolife]

Everything that is wrong with atheism...

Plasmatic said, but knows better:
"If "god" gave this power to men he did so by self limiting his own which by definition makes he/she/it non-omnipotent."

God's ability to self-limit, as in the case of attributing the creation with free will, does in no way render God impotent, let alone invalid. I could have finessed my teenaged son's way out of jail when he was arrested for tagging a storefront... but I didn't. It would not have been good fathering for me to have done so.

Everything that is wrong with [post]modern science is that it has lost its grip on true causality... as has atheism.
By defining God, fundamental causality, design, random, etc. out of existence [in their own minds], they define true meaning out of their lives, and out of their science... hence a deep bow to darkness, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and empty philosophy. The true "modern" scientists, mentioned earlier on this thread, knew better.

[StevenO]

Everything that is wrong with [post]modern science is that it has lost its grip on true causality... as has atheism.
By defining God, fundamental causality, design, random, etc. out of existence [in their own minds], they define true meaning out of their lives, and out of their science... hence a deep bow to darkness, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and empty philosophy. The true "modern" scientists, mentioned earlier on this thread, knew better.

Causality has been lost with the advent of quantum mechanics...at the lowest level it seems that statistics and non-locality are woven into the fabric of nature. Maybe atoms are already able to express "free will"?

[Plasmatic]

Plasmatic said, but knows better:
"If "god" gave this power to men he did so by self limiting his own which by definition makes he/she/it non-omnipotent."

God's ability to self-limit, as in the case of attributing the creation with free will, does in no way render God impotent, let alone invalid. I could have finessed my teenaged son's way out of jail when he was arrested for tagging a storefront... but I didn't. It would not have been good fathering for me to have done so.

Web dont cast strawmen on my integrity.What I "know" is that if "god" is limited he is not "all-powerful" Your analogy is completely false. You have no ability to control his decisions. This is the similarity you are missing between you and an omnipotent "god".

By defining God, fundamental causality, design, random, etc. out of existence [in their own minds], they define true meaning out of their lives, and out of their science... hence a deep bow to darkness, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and empty philosophy. The true "modern" scientists, mentioned earlier on this thread, knew better.

Definitions are their referents.There are no referents corresponding to observation for the "concepts" you defend. I have NEVER defined causality "out of existence" its the very concept that is the antidote to mysticism. Modern physics is rife with mysticism. The "modern scientists" you cite are the progenitors of their spiritual children whom "bow" to the nonsense you mentioned[black holes etc.]
I love my life more than anything that's why I refuse to waste its "meaning" on invaluable fairy tales.

[bdw000]

Causality has been lost with the advent of quantum mechanics...

According to David Harriman (associated with the Ayn Rand Institute), the "rejection of causality" actually preceeded the advent of quantum mechanics. The lecture I listened to the other day was a real eye-opener.

I am no expert, but my feeling is that he made a very convincing case. For years I've believed the story (and Harriman emphasizes that it IS a "story"), that quantum mechanics is what somehow refuted causality. I no longer believe that.

[bdw000]

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
--- T.S. Elliot

Excuse me, but isn't that from Robert Frost????

[Plasmatic]

Glad you iked it BDW. Harriman demostrates the philosophical foundation the quantum mystics were already working from. Heres a link to the lecture:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... ls_physics

This is a condesation of his 6 hr course which is great.

[bdw000]

It was thanks to you Plasmatic (a post you made months ago) that I found Harriman's lectures.

I wish the dude would write a book (cheaper, "random access" to ideas, etc).

It seems to me that his work is very important. His DOCUMENTATION that "the philosopohy ALWAYS precedes the interpretation" in modern physics is vital to sane science. Their claim that they are forced into their interpretations by the experiments just does not hold water. They see what they want to see, end of discusssion.

I have said it before and I will say it again: anyone interested in EU (or people like Halton Arp, etc) really need to get ahold of Harriman's lectures. You can't fight what you don't see.

[Plasmatic]

bdw I am very glad to be able to tell you that he has indeed written a book and it will be out in 2010. INDUCTION IN PHYSICS is the topic and he coauthored it with Leonard Peikoff. BDW It makes my heart glow that youve gotten the message!

[webolife]

Plasmatic,
Here we go again... but I don't wish to continue an old and maybe tired debate...
For my part, I'll just repeat that the [current] definition of causality [identification with "referents" is an un-useful tautology] deliberately and unnecessarily disavows a first cause. The effect of this ripples through the entire universe of scientific thought, leaving atheism as the only rule for post-modern science. Perhaps you were referring to different scientists than I in your rebuttal, but "modern" scientists are almost to the last percent characterized by their fundamental belief in order and design in the universe.
As for my analogy, you seem to miss the point that, despite my son having the free will to get himself bounced into jail, I had the free will to leave him there instead of bailing him out. His perceptions ["I am an unlucky person", "My dad hates me"] were ignorant of the fact that I left him there out of a higher love. Likewise, our perception of chaos in the universe belies the sometimes eccliptic design that is revealed to those with their eyes and minds wide open.

Respectfully... no strawmen intended.

[Plasmatic]

Perhaps you were referring to different scientists than I in your rebuttal, but "modern" scientists are almost to the last percent characterized by their fundamental belief in order and design in the universe.
As for my analogy, you seem to miss the point that, despite my son having the free will to get himself bounced into jail, I had the free will to leave him there instead of bailing him out. His perceptions ["I am an unlucky person", "My dad hates me"] were ignorant of the fact that I left him there out of a higher love. Likewise, our perception of chaos in the universe belies the sometimes eccliptic design that is revealed to those with their eyes and minds wide open.

Say Web I cant discern how anything said here has anything to do with the previous exchange on omnipotence. Lets tables this part,but I would love it if you'd try one more time to explain what you mean by:

the [current] definition of causality [identification with "referents" is an un-useful tautology]

Forget about the "first cause" part for now if you would,and focus only on this. Particularly how does the above comment on my response about definitions/causality,indicate a tautology?

I dont care about hypothetical attributes of the concept "god". But if your inclined Id love to at least understand your comment above .

[bdw000]

bdw I am very glad to be able to tell you that he has indeed written a book and it will be out in 2010. INDUCTION IN PHYSICS is the topic and he coauthored it with Leonard Peikoff.

Great. I definitely want the "Induction" book (and people wonder why I'm single )

But we still NEED the PHILOSOPOHIC CORRUPTION OF PHYSICS book, with all the subtopics from his 5 or 6 other lectures thrown in. This is one of those cases where all the footnotes alone are worth the price of the book. Unless he is somehow refuted outright (you never know), I'd say his thesis is as important as EU theory.

[webolife]

Plasmatic,
You missed the omnipotence connection? Really? So the fact that I chose not to get my son out of jail does not attest to the fact that it was in my power either to do or not to do so?

I can't "forget" the "first cause" part, but I'll try to address your question...

You, and altonhare, have repeatedly asserted that causality refutes the supernatural [you like to use the term, mystical].
You do this by referring to a definition of causality that excludes a first cause, and assumes the eternal nature of matter and energy. You have simply replaced one God for another god, and done so with a tautology and with circular reasoning.

God doesn't exist, therefore matter and energy must be eternal; since matter and energy are eternal, there is no need for a "god".

The 1st law of thermodynamics, conservation of matter and energy, was predicated on the belief in a first cause.

[Plasmatic]

You do this by referring to a definition of causality that excludes a first cause, and assumes the eternal nature of matter and energy. You have simply replaced one God for another god, and done so with a tautology and with circular reasoning.

God doesn't exist, therefore matter and energy must be eternal; since matter and energy are eternal, there is no need for a "god".

I see what you are asserting now thanks. I don't know why you assumed that this is the epistemological chain I used to derive my assertion on "god" How did you come up with this premise? It cannot be from what Ive said . It must be related to an assumption you hold.

Its actually goes like this:

Existence exist.
I exist.
I am conscious.
I form concepts from my observations.
I observe ubiquitously that everything is something specific/has identity.
Everything acts according to its identity, I realize to say otherwise is to assert a contradiction.
I grasp that because everything is something in particular and can only act according to its nature and that something performing an action not caused by its nature is self negating and impossible.
I derive from this ubiquitous observation the concept of causality.

The above inductive process, makes the assertion that "randomness" exist to be a claim that some existents do not have identity are not something specific and their actions are not caused by their nature i.e. causeless.

Likewise I realize that the term "supernatural" means without identity/nature/not caused by identity/causeless.

I in no way began with the assumption that "god" does not exist. It is a realization that everything I observe makes the asserted concepts of "god","randomness", invalid concepts in violation of ubiquitous observation[the basis for all knowledge].Not to mention arbitrary.

I then apply this knowledge to the question of a first cause. I realize that unless existence is eternal I have an infinite regress as to "what caused the first existent"
So I have a choice, contradiction and infinite regress,or non contradiction and no arbitrary assertions.

Plasmatic,
You missed the omnipotence connection? Really? So the fact that I chose not to get my son out of jail does not attest to the fact that it was in my power either to do or not to do so

If you insist...

Your analogy does not hold because even though you could get him out but choose not too does not =omnipotence. If you could not stop him from doing what he "chooses" then you cannot be omnipotent. If you can stop him he has no "choice"/free will. Able to choose cannot also= unable to choose.Likewise If he has the power to choose ,you do not have all power. If I have 20 marbles and I give you 1 I do not have "all" of the marbles. I cannot have all the marbles and not have all the marbles. 19 does not =20.etc,etc.Why? because of identity!