Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2014, 02:34 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2014 02:43 PM by Baruch.)
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Quote:The potentiality of water in hydrogen and oxygen is an abstract property, a property that might in no way be predicted until the molecule emerges, but nevertheless - it's a known property of the atoms.

The fact that one may not be able to predict some of the emergent properties is just human limitation not some fundamental impossibility.
With a good understanding of quantum mechanics & atomic theory one can predict the emergent properties. The key here is we have explanatory power & NOT just descriptions of emergent properties.
Eg some elements in the periodic table were predicted before they were ever empirically discovered and this includes predictions of their properties.
Eg understanding the electron shells, principal quantum numbers and electron configurations one CAN predict emergent properties of molecules. Eg knowing oxygen can covalently bond with hydrogen due to two free electrons in its outer electron shell. Clearly predicting is hard work ( a human limitation) and one has to consider all sorts of complex issues such as hydrogen bonding which are crucial for giving "water" its properties of wetness - but in principle these can be predicted.

In any case whether or not you can predict is off topic and little to do with transcendentals.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
21-08-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Quote:LOL, no - I am no theist!

I guess it might help people make sense of me if they have a box to put me in though, so I'll identify here loosely as an "Integral thinker".

The idea of Integral thinking is not to fight over who is right or wrong in an absolute sense, but rather to develop an Integral meta-perspective as a (integrating) container for all relative human perspectives. Eg to find a way of allowing (even apparently contradictory) relative human truth claims to make non-contradictory sense.

In a nutshell, this is done bey relativising all truth claims to the speaker's psychology.

On that subject, I don't think that classical theist ideas really contradict my previous post to you, at least not when both are held in a meta-perspective.

Phil

So your Ken Wilber now and not Deepak Chopra.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 02:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 01:45 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Correct. And it's a property of atoms that they contain known compound properties as a potential.

Define "potential"; as best I can tell it's just a deepity you made up.

From my dictionary

Potential:
"having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future:"

I understand the rest of the points in your post and agree with them. If you think they refute or contradict my position, then I think you may be debating against a mis-perception of my position.

Can you reflect your understanding of my position back to me so I can check your understanding of it?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 03:05 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 02:34 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
Quote:The potentiality of water in hydrogen and oxygen is an abstract property, a property that might in no way be predicted until the molecule emerges, but nevertheless - it's a known property of the atoms.

The fact that one may not be able to predict some of the emergent properties is just human limitation not some fundamental impossibility.

My point exactly.

Especially since cause and effect is clearly visible in that we know certain atomic interactions manifest as certain compounds and it's repeatable that they do so.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 03:09 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 02:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 02:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "potential"; as best I can tell it's just a deepity you made up.

From my dictionary

Potential:
"having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future:"

"lol dictionary" is never a good start.

That definition again recalls a temporal relation which is inapplicable to the interaction of physical theories...

(21-08-2014 02:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  I understand the rest of the points in your post and agree with them.

I find that unlikely, since I expressly disagreed with you.

(21-08-2014 02:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  If you think they refute or contradict my position, then I think you may be debating against a mis-perception of my position.

Can you reflect your understanding of my position back to me so I can check your understanding of it?

You referred several times to emergent properties existing as "potential" in some way; that is, as latent and intrinsic qualities. I find such a statement incoherent.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 03:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You referred several times to emergent properties existing as "potential" in some way; that is, as latent and intrinsic qualities. I find such a statement incoherent.

It is a property of hydrogen and oxygen atoms that they can combine to form water molecules.

You find it incoherent that I know this?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 03:35 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 03:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You referred several times to emergent properties existing as "potential" in some way; that is, as latent and intrinsic qualities. I find such a statement incoherent.

It is a property of hydrogen and oxygen atoms that they can combine to form water molecules.

You find it incoherent that I know this?

Phil

Nice try. But no.

I find it in no way meaningful to say that the chemical structure of water exists as potential within independent hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

That is what is meant by emergent properties. Friction exists. Atoms exist. Friction does not exist on an atomic scale.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
21-08-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 03:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I find it in no way meaningful to say that the chemical structure of water exists as potential within independent hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

So how is it do you think, that just from knowing that the atoms I have in a jar are hydrogen and oxygen atoms, I can accurately predict water will occur if I put a match to it?

I can predict this very very accurately. I guarantee to get it right every time - just from knowing the atoms are hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

How do I do it?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 04:07 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 03:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I find it in no way meaningful to say that the chemical structure of water exists as potential within independent hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

So how is it do you think, that just from knowing that the atoms I have in a jar are hydrogen and oxygen atoms, I can accurately predict water will occur if I put a match to it?

I can predict this very very accurately. I guarantee to get it right every time - just from knowing the atoms are hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

How do I do it?

Phil

Except when you don't and you get hydrogen peroxide.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(21-08-2014 04:07 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 03:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I find it in no way meaningful to say that the chemical structure of water exists as potential within independent hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

So how is it do you think, that just from knowing that the atoms I have in a jar are hydrogen and oxygen atoms, I can accurately predict water will occur if I put a match to it?

I can predict this very very accurately. I guarantee to get it right every time - just from knowing the atoms are hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

How do I do it?

Magic.
Dodgy

Seriously?

Because you already know what water is.

You can explain observed emergent behaviour (molecular structure) in terms of simpler interactions (eg electronegativity), but you cannot a priori predict that interaction.

I am not sure that you fully understand what is meant by "emergent".
(or "predict", for that matter)

An emergent property is an irreducible property. A single atom does not exhibit covalent bonding. A single particle does not exhibit thermodynamics. I - as a human observer - can understand these behaviours and, knowing the underlying physical theories, link them. That is not the same thing.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: