Posted on 10/28/2010 10:49:08 AM PDT by betty boop
Oh I'm so sorry you found this thread by happenstance! I definitely had meant to ping you from the outset, but evidently failed to do it.
But I'm so very glad you're with us now, dear MHGinTN! Thank you ever so much for your fascinating insights!
GREAT observation, dear brother in Christ!
Oh, you really "nail it" here, dear MHGinTN! This is an exercise in pure "sleight of hand...." Talk about intellectual dishonesty!!!
That is absolutely the case, dear Diamond, in my view. Darwinism is riddled with this sort of self-contradiction....
Spirit/soul/mind might "be" a dimension — or it might occupy space/time like a field (fields occur at all points in space/time.)
In math/physics jargon though, it might instead be called information (Shannon, successful communication.)
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your absolutely outstanding observations!
And for this truly magnificent essay-post!
Indeed, dear spirited — you really nail the internal logical contradiction laid at the very base of scientific naturalism/materialism here.
Thank you so very much for this splendid essay/post!
THanks for all your great posts and kind pings.
Which are all purely physical considerations. Yet the outcome of the dice roll may possibly be affected by yet another physical condition, which is actually the result of the intervention of a mind: Are the dice "loaded?" Have they been tampered with, so to increase the probability of a favorable outcome from the point of view of the dice tamperer?
I agree with this:
We can say that results are "effectively random," but really that's only because we do not have the means to properly measure the initial conditions, nor account for all of the physical variables that affect the roll.And this:
And this takes us to the original point about "randomness" vs. "knowing the system" in which the event takes place. If we talk about physical random events, we're really talking about events that are "effectively random" from our perspective. We often have no way of gathering information sufficient to describe the physical processes that led to the outcome we observe. Lacking that knowledge (which may be, per Heisenberg, intrinsically unavailable to us), we can still deal with effective randomness through mathematics, via statistics — we can grapple with probabilities, even if deterministic answers elude us. And it works very well. (As an aside, many important theories of modern statistics are due to one William S. Gosset, who was employed as a statistician by the Guinness brewing company. Further proof that beer is good.)...especially the part, "beer is good." :^) [But don't forget Bayes!]
Seriously, you point to the essence of the problem with your words, "from our perspective." Which is why to me, stupid simple and intellectually flaccid as I am, that the use of the word "random" is simply an indicator of something which we do not, in fact, know. And per Heisenberg, maybe cannot know — from our observational perspective. Statistics can bring some tractability to problems of this kind, allowing them to be manipulated in technically productive ways. But statistics can never (in my opinion) elucidate deep truths about the natural world per se.
And I really liked this, a lot:
The key to the problem of materialism, really depends on the nature of these apparently non-material concepts. The principles of mathematics, for example, appear to be discovered, as opposed to invented. And mathematics is at root a descriptive discipline — might it not embody a form of meaning?I definitely believe it does! But then I'm a Platonist — one who believes mathematics is "discovered" — and not a formalist, like, say, David Hilbert, who believed mathematics is "invented," i.e., constructed by human minds.
Also I so agree with your observation that "...one thing that appears to be the case, is that 'meaning' is not part of a truly materialist universe. [Nor can it be without invoking a fatal self-contradiction.] Material interactions cannot 'mean' anything — they just happen. For a phenomenon to have 'meaning,' implies 'purpose,' [final cause] or at least awareness, that at some level necessarily exists outside the materialist universe."
It seems pretty clear to me that the material universe operates according to "rules" — just as you say — and that these rules are themselves immaterial. So another self-contradiction in the materialist view.... Mathematics and logic are also immaterial; but what science, materialist or other, can proceed without mathematics and logic?
You wrote, "we use our deductions to create tools by which we control the material interactions of the universe in order to achieve some desired end; and 'desired end' implies meaning." It moreover implies purpose — an end, goal, limit; a telos — a final cause. Which Francis Bacon effectively banished from science a long time ago....
But it seems to me, without final cause — without the question "Why?" — science is reduced to technical manipulation — which can indeed be purposive. But at the same time the "purpose" in question is not directed at truth, but at utility.
In conclusion, I don't disagree with anything you wrote. And I certainly do agree with your conclusion!
Thank you for your superb analysis, dear r9etb!
Who or what is doing the "selecting?"
I do so look forward to your posts. I feel like I’m attending a Graduate level Bible study AND a Philiosophical discussion rolled into one.
After birth, if an antibody binds to its ‘epitope’ it is positively selected for and signaled to proliferate; this is why you only catch the same cold once. After you are exposed to it your antibodies that bind to it are mass produced and ready and waiting if they ever see that viral epitope again.
My point is that the immune system uses randomly created variation and a selection process to create the means whereby it can make a specific “tool” (an antibody) that can fit any specific nut or bolt in existence (3-D shape than an antibody binds to).
It is obvious that random variation and selection of that variation is a POWERFUL method, one used commonly in nature.
So was it Calvin’s theological determinism (rehashed Augustinian determinism as rehashed Manichaeism) that led to the development of the biological, political, and psychological determinism of Darwin, Marx, and Freud?
Comment: Statistics comes quite close to predicting “truth” -- with confidence -- depending on sample sizes and careful use of the Central Limit Theorem.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
By the way … the words "any extremely unusual or extraordinary thing or occurrence" in my post 39 reflect a dictionary definition of “phenomenon,” and thereby provide a rational justification for using the term : “random phenomenon.”
Statistics predicts truth? I thought the entire value of statistics was to gain tractability WRT problems where the complete "truth" of the situation is unknown. IOW, we wouldn't need statistics at all if we knew what the truth was.
How can a phenomenon be "random" when by definition it is already "there?" What you seem to suggest is that a concrete something — a phenomenon — is the product of something we don't understand, which is a confession of ignorance.
Rather than settle for ignorance, maybe we should exercise our curiosity about the nature of the world and maybe learn something new.
RE: the Central Limit Theorem I read the following at "The Central Limit Theorem — How to Tame Wild Populations" —
People come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Get a few million people together in one place, say in Rhode Island or South Carolina, and it would be impossible to predict what a single person selected from either state would be like. Try to compare all Rhode Islanders to all South Carolinians and the task gets even more complex. Obviously, something is needed to simplify the process, and that’s why we have statistics.Which, in my fevered imagination, means we have to sacrifice the pursuit of "deep truths" about the natural world in order to make a problem tractable.... In fact, it seems to me science isn't as interested in "deep truths" as it is in solving immediate technical problems.
The article continues:
...we must simplify and so we’ll focus on a parameter that can characterize the weights of all individuals in a population. A parameter is a number which summarizes a specific characteristic generated from measurements of every member of a population. Using a parameter it’s possible to represent a property of an entire population with a single number instead of millions of individual data points.But such an approach wipes out the idea of the value of any individual case. The group becomes the focus. Plus how does one measure every member of the population? More to the point, what is being measured? The measurer selects what he wants to measure, and measures only that.
Nature creates individuals. The idea of the group is a convenient human construct used to "simplify" a complex problem by blending away inconvenient differences. What does this simplification cost you, assuming you want to know the truth of reality?
BTW, if you find these comments mystifying, please be advised that I'm coming at this problem, not as a scientist, but as a philosopher, in terms of the philosophical disciplines of epistemology (the science of knowledge and knowing) and ontology (the science of being and existence).
Well, FWIW.
Thank you as ever for writing, OldNavyVet!
Estimates and predictions can be made quite well using unbiased test data in conjunction with the Central Limit Theorem.
Nothing, however, can be estimated or predicted with 100% confidence; but 90 to 95 percent confidence levels -- as to truth -- are good things to know in the technical world.
Been there, done that ... Have a great day.
Applying statistical techniques to "unbiased" data using the CLT can allow us, as you say, to make estimates and predictions. But the interest here is accuracy, not Truth.
JMHO FWIW
Good night!
Betty ... It would be interesting to know how you define truth.
The best definition I’ve heard is that truth is the recognition of reality.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.