Preconditional Worldview

[Deleted member 619]

Oh, I meant to add:

This notion that the laws of thought, often referred to as the laws of logic, are absolute, and require accounting, is asinine.

Like reason and science, the laws of thought are pragmatic. Could they be wrong? Dunno, and nor does anybody else. What they actually are are descriptions of how we think about things, and specifically about contradictions. We think, based on a large body of evidence, that contradictions can't obtain in the real world. We work on that basis, and will continue to do so, because that basis works. The point at which we'll stop taking them as absolute is the point at which we encounter a contradiction.

The entire basis for the presupp position on 'logical absolutes' is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what they actually are. They don't require explanation. Things are what they are, and we've found no instance of something being what it is and simultaneously not what it is. When we find one, we'll ditch the LNC and the LOI.

Again, they work. That's it. No presupposition or explanatory basis required.

 

[Rumraket]

This is a discussion between myself and Aron Ra. If you read his initial post, you'd probably understand that this isn't the place for your conjecture.

I accept your concession. Welcome to atheism.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I must say I am entirely disappointed but unsurprised by Joshua's performance so far.

I wonder where do apologists get these scripts? Because it does appear well rehearsed but completely inadequate to respond to the points raised.

We've even had these tangents into assertions of "all people have enough revelation" and questions of "why OUGHT I not be dishonest in light of your position" for which I would unsurprised if Josuha has other inadequate scripts.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Another vote here for a peanut gallery thread. I know the low hanging fruit is tasty and fodder is fairly rare these days but can we hold off until we get another thread for that? I'm stoked someone actually showed up. Be a pity to see him use having to defend himself to a group as an excuse to duck out.

With no disrespect to your good self, Aron Ra was pretty clear that he was not interested in a formal debate. It's only Joshua who seems to want to dictate what can be said, or who can participate, and I see absolutely no reason to humour him.

While it may be convenient for Joshua to have only one interlocutor, the fact remains that a public forum is not a place to have a restricted private conversation. If Joshua were to use this as an excuse to auto-defenestrate, then I can only assume that other tenuous excuses would be just as forthcoming.

For me personally, I am not interested in talking to other people about Joshua's arguments, not least because they don't appear to have an iota of novelty to them. Instead, I'd rather attempt to engage him in reasoned discourse to see how well his positions hold up under sustained scrutiny. At present, they simply don't. Noting that rationality is not predicated on itself, but rather on how well its outcomes correspond to external empirical events seems to have rather ended the discussion anyway. It doesn't seem he had even conceived of such a simple fact.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Oh, I meant to add:

This notion that the laws of thought, often referred to as the laws of logic, are absolute, and require accounting, is asinine.

Like reason and science, the laws of thought are pragmatic. Could they be wrong? Dunno, and nor does anybody else. What they actually are are descriptions of how we think about things, and specifically about contradictions. We think, based on a large body of evidence, that contradictions can't obtain in the real world. We work on that basis, and will continue to do so, because that basis works. The point at which we'll stop taking them as absolute is the point at which we encounter a contradiction.

After your first sentence, I was about to point out that the law of non-contradiction seems necessarily absolute, but then you went on to summarize the laws of logic as being explicitly or essentially about removing or resolving contradictions which I think is a very interesting and fruitful way to conceive of the process.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Indeed.

It was the ever-incisive Vazscep who started me thinking about the laws of thought, by questioning whether they were actually absolute. He's always treated them as useful guidelines only and, once you start to look at them in that light, the notion that they need some explanatory basis simply evaporates.

People have this conception of 'laws' as being prescriptive, because we equate them to secular laws. Thing is, secular laws only seem prescriptive because we think of them as being instructions. In fact, they aren't. What they really are, is descriptions of what will happen if... in precisely the same way that physical laws are. Logical laws are no different.

I'd be impressed if anybody could point to anything that can genuinely be asserted as absolute. In that light, presuppositionalism becomes even more silly, because its entire foundation is the necessity of explanatory bases for absolutes.

 

[Sparhafoc]

People have this conception of 'laws' as being prescriptive,...

Yes, this is a pet peeve of mine, and the people who are under this misconception also tend to be functionally unable to process their error regardless of how long is spent explaining it to them.

I'd be impressed if anybody could point to anything that can genuinely be asserted as absolute.

The problem here would be that absolutes can only exist within a specifically designed system where they are axiomatic, so it becomes all about the defined predicates. Absolutes arise from imposed restrictions, helpful though they may be.

Still, I find it hard to comprehend how something could both be itself and also not be itself in any system.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I do too, and I suspect that contradictions can't obtain, but I can't assert it.

An interesting and instructive thing to think about is Bell Inequality violations. Logic and integers bring you to a conclusion that is unassailable, but the real world violates it routinely in a way that seems entirely illogical. That alone gives me pause when treating anything that we've conceptualised as absolute. All conclusions are premature.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'd be impressed if anybody could point to anything that can genuinely be asserted as absolute.

Creationists/Apologists will never be able to master the quote function.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I stand corrected. :lol:

 

[Deleted member 619]

To put a bit of meat on that bit about Bell INequality violations, here's the portion of my post on paradox that deals with it:

There's a straightforward logical principle regarding inequality in binary variables. In particular, it tells us that in any set defined by binary properties, certain inequalities will always be visible.

To make this explicit, let's select a set. Take a random selection of Tweeps. I assert the following about this selection:

The number of theists who do not accept evolution plus the number of people who do accept evolution and are not male is greater than or equal to the number of theists who are not male. It seems like it could be a bold assertion on the face of it, but the application of a bit of logic shows that it cannot be otherwise.

Let's label these binary variables X, Y and Z, where X = theist, Y = accepts evolution and Z = male.

N(X, ¬Y) + N(Y, ¬Z) ≥ N(X, ¬Z)

If we take the first grouping, it tells you nothing about the gender, which means that it is, in and of itself, a binary grouping, of the number of theists who do not accept evolution and are male, and the number of theists who do not accept evolution and are not male. You can do this for each grouping, with leaves us with the following groups on the left of the equator (numbered for convenience):

N1(X, ¬Y, Z) + N2(X, ¬Y, ¬Z)

N3(X, Y, ¬Z) + N4(¬X, Y, ¬Z)

And the following on the right:

N5(X, Y, ¬Z) + N6(X, ¬Y, ¬Z)

Simply by noting that N3 and N5 subtract to cancel each other, and that N2 and N6 do the same, we're left with the following conclusion.

N1(X, ¬Y, Z) + N4(¬X, Y, ¬Z) ≥ 0

In other words, it's telling us that the number of members in a set based on a set of binary properties X, Y and Z cannot be a negative number. This is an obvious tautology, which means that the inequality statement:

N(X, ¬Y) + N(Y, ¬Z) ≥ N(X, ¬Z)

Is also a tautology. This is simple logic applied to binary properties.

Now we move to the quantum world. For our grouping here, we're going to use the binary properties regarding angular momentum about a particular axis. These are measurable properties. We can see that the angular momentum about a given axis will always be clockwise or anti-clockwise (which we'll denote '¬').

Let's label our axes X, Y, and Z. We're looking now at the angular momentum of, say, an electron about the X axis, the Y axis and the Z axis. From the above, we should be able to say that our reasoning above applies to the relationships between groupings if EPR is correct and we're dealing with hidden variables.

This is the troubling bit: When we measure the spin of an electron about these axes in the lab, they don't satisfy this inequality, and what we actually see is this:

N(X, ¬Y) + N(Y, ¬Z) < N(X, ¬Z)

Quantum mechanics violates Bell's Inequality, and tells us that, in particular, the number of electrons with spin clockwise about X and anti-cockwise about Y plus the number of electrons with spin clockwise about Y and anti-clockwise about Z, is fewer than the number of electrons with spin clockwise about X and anti-clockwise about Z. What Bell has proved with this is that no theory that is both local and realistic can reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory, predictions that are observationally verified.

Coming back to entangled particles, for which the properties are correlated, because each of the particles is a portion of a system, as opposed to being separate, this inequality is again violated by experimental measurement.

For anybody really interested, you can find the full post below, and it has all the history of the importance of this conclusion:

Paradox! A Game For All the Family!

 

[Sparhafoc]

I do too, and I suspect that contradictions can't obtain, but I can't assert it.

An interesting and instructive thing to think about is Bell Inequality violations. Logic and integers bring you to a conclusion that is unassailable, but the real world violates it routinely in a way that seems entirely illogical. That alone gives me pause when treating anything that we've conceptualised as absolute. All conclusions are premature.

/me likes

 

[AronRa]

I read through his post again and realized that Joshua didn't just ignore one of the most important questions I posed to him; he deleted it so that he wouldn't have to answer it. I guess he thought I wouldn't notice.

Since you accept that at least one of these men logically must be wrong, then how could we tell which one it is? Do you also accept either the evident probability or obvious possibility that BOTH men could be wrong?

 

[joshua040103]

I read through his post again and realized that Joshua didn't just ignore one of the most important questions I posed to him; he deleted it so that he wouldn't have to answer it. I guess he thought I wouldn't notice.

Since you accept that at least one of these men logically must be wrong, then how could we tell which one it is? Do you also accept either the evident probability or obvious possibility that BOTH men could be wrong?

The answer is that all claims regarding scripture should as a rule be compared to scripture in a hermeneutically sound fashion.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[AronRa]

Since you accept that at least one of these men logically must be wrong, then how could we tell which one it is? Do you also accept either the evident probability or obvious possibility that BOTH men could be wrong?

The answer is that all claims regarding scripture should as a rule be compared to scripture in a hermeneutically sound fashion.

That didn't answer either question. Try again.

1. Since you accept that at least one of these men logically must be wrong, then how could we tell which one it is?

2. Do you also accept either the evident probability or obvious possibility that BOTH men could be wrong?

 

[Sparhafoc]

The answer is that all claims regarding scripture should as a rule be compared to scripture in a hermeneutically sound fashion.

And the hermeneutically sound fashion - the correct method of interpretation - is itself found in scripture?

Either a) you're admitting that your reasoning is independent of scripture or b) it's circular.

If a, you're back to square one regarding your claims; you can't know your senses are reliable because they're the result of an intelligent creative act, because to know of that alleged intelligent creative act you need to first employ your senses.

So what we're left with is a tacit admission that, while doing everything possible to pretend otherwise, your reasoning is just as suspect according to your own argument as everyone else's.

 

[AronRa]

So what we're left with is a tacit admission that, while doing everything possible to pretend otherwise, your reasoning is just as suspect according to your own argument as everyone else's.

Except that rationalists using scientific methodology have a way to check and correct our positions, where scripture can only be interpreted subjectively no matter what it says.

Isn't hermeneutics the very method that lead Sye ten Bruggencate and Isaac Newton both to mutually exclusive contradictory conclusions?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Except that rationalists using scientific methodology have a way to check and correct our positions, where scripture can only be interpreted subjectively no matter what it says.

Absolutely, but employing only Joshua's position, all his contentions about the supposed rational position are equally criticisms of his own before we even note that a rational position actually has an independent arbitration system where its outcomes can be empirically tested to see whether they correspond to reality.

It's also telling to note that Joshua cannot claim this for scripture because claims in scripture do not correspond at all well to empirical verification. That would, of course, be where he and his fellow fundamentalists NEED ad hoc interpretation to evade falsification of their scriptural assertions.

Isn't hermeneutics the very method that lead Sye ten Bruggencate and Isaac Newton both to mutually exclusive contradictory conclusions?

The very fact that interpretation is ever needed with the alleged book of instructions by the absolute creator of everything - including human psychology - should be adequate cause for suspicion and skepticism of claims of its provenance, and certainly of its accuracy. It's the same flaw as when Muslims contend that one needs to speak Arabic to understand the Quran - as if the creator of everything were capable only of expounding 'his' instructions in a single human language, and somehow couldn't muster an instruction that is universal.

God the maximal being in all ways except communicating what it is 'he' specifically needs us to understand and believe.

How very fortunate we have all these self-proclaimed experts to tell us how we should interpret scripture, and how fortunate it is for them that in every age these experts parasite off the human organism making for themselves a very comfortable living as intermediaries in the divine shell-game.

 

[joshua040103]

Except that rationalists using scientific methodology have a way to check and correct our positions, where scripture can only be interpreted subjectively no matter what it says.

Absolutely, but employing only Joshua's position, all his contentions about the supposed rational position are equally criticisms of his own before we even note that a rational position actually has an independent arbitration system where its outcomes can be empirically tested to see whether they correspond to reality.

It's also telling to note that Joshua cannot claim this for scripture because claims in scripture do not correspond at all well to empirical verification. That would, of course, be where he and his fellow fundamentalists NEED ad hoc interpretation to evade falsification of their scriptural assertions.

Isn't hermeneutics the very method that lead Sye ten Bruggencate and Isaac Newton both to mutually exclusive contradictory conclusions?

The very fact that interpretation is ever needed with the alleged book of instructions by the absolute creator of everything - including human psychology - should be adequate cause for suspicion and skepticism of claims of its provenance, and certainly of its accuracy. It's the same flaw as when Muslims contend that one needs to speak Arabic to understand the Quran - as if the creator of everything were capable only of expounding 'his' instructions in a single human language, and somehow couldn't muster an instruction that is universal.

God the maximal being in all ways except communicating what it is 'he' specifically needs us to understand and believe.

How very fortunate we have all these self-proclaimed experts to tell us how we should interpret scripture, and how fortunate it is for them that in every age these experts parasite off the human organism making for themselves a very comfortable living as intermediaries in the divine shell-game.

I'm curious to know why other people are inviting themselves into a discussion which actually intended to be between Aron and myself. I'm honestly not in the least bit interested in what anyone else has to say at this time. Either Aron can choose another way to have this discussion so others won't be able to join in, or people could butt out, or... I'm done. I've provided the link to this discussion to several of my Christian brothers, and they're following it. Please take note how none of them have taken it upon themselves to join in uninvited.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm curious to know why other people are inviting themselves into a discussion which actually intended to be between Aron and myself.

Your curiosity doesn't seem to extend to reading clear explanations about how this is a public forum, and that if you wanted a private conversation you're more than capable of arranging it. Remember? Like you somehow managed to send me a private message uninvited? Yes, that's how you would go about doing what you say you want to do.

As Aron Ra has explicitly stated numerous times that he is not interested in a formal debate with you, then by definition, this is not a formal debate. If it were a formal debate, you would have a point... only, what would happen is that the forum moderators would restrict you and he to the discussion thread and no one else would be able to post in it whether they wanted to or not. Again, the fact that this has not occurred should be ample indication to you that you are not having a discussion with Aron Ra alone, but are in fact on a public forum that you just joined and consequently which you do not possess the authority to dictate to.

So my curiosity is also piqued... but the object of my curiosity is your mistaken belief that complete strangers are yours to command.

I'm honestly not in the least bit interested in what anyone else has to say at this time.

Fantastic. I can pretty much assure you that no one here is in the slightest bit interested in anything you've got to say at this time or at any other, but that doesn't mean your rambling illogical assertions won't be addressed.

Further, it's clear that it's more about competence on your part - your interest is irrelevant if you lack the competence to address what others have said.

Either Aron can choose another way to have this discussion so others won't be able to join in, or people could butt out, or... I'm done.

Flounce off if it makes you feel better, but don't pretend to yourself that complete strangers are obliged to perform tricks for you on command. You're perfectly free to do whatever you want, just as others are... and just as others are free to read into your attempts to control the conversation and ignore all those difficult responses to your claims whatever they want to.

I've provided the link to this discussion to several of my Christian brothers, and they're following it. Please take note how none of them have taken it upon themselves to join in uninvited.

Which they are, of course, wholly free to do given that this is a PUBLIC FORUM. For clarity, let's make sure you understand the concept of a PUBLIC FORUM. You realize that you agreed to a series of rules when you signed up here? Do any of these rules indicate that you are entitled to dictate who can respond to your posts?

If not, perhaps I might suggest popping that hubris back up the sticky orifice you extruded it from. No one can oblige you to respond to the posts demolishing your claims, but without a moderator restricting a discussion to being between just you and Aron Ra (something Aron Ra has clearly stated he has no interest in), then your choices are either to like it or lump it.