The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2017, 09:07 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 10:06 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 09:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Math and physical reality are inseparable.

The finger pointing at the Moon is not the Moon. Both math and reasoning are abstract languages used to describe reality ... but they are not reality itself.

When you are saying there is a First Cause, you are not making an abstract claim. You are making a claim about reality. All the reasoning in the world will not make something exist if it doesn't. Reasoning bow to the hard facts on the ground, because it is much more likely to have faulty reasoning than it is to have atoms behave contrary to the "laws" of the Universe.

What that means is that if you want to demonstrate a First Cause, you'll need physical evidence.

Now, back to our much funner stuff:

[Image: oqyvAUz.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
08-02-2017, 09:18 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Defending the PSR
Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/#H3
If you read sections 2 and 3 in this article, you can get a better understanding of the PSR as Leibniz formulated it. As Leibniz argued, the PSR is fundamental to the concept of identity.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 09:23 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 07:08 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'll start a separate thread on this because I still have some issues with how you avoid skepticism.

I don't "avoid skepticism". But by all means.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 09:24 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 09:07 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Math and physical reality are inseparable.

The finger pointing at the Moon is not the Moon. Both math and reasoning are abstract languages used to describe reality ... but they are not reality itself.

When you are saying there is a First Cause, you are not makin an abstract claim. You are making a claim about reality. All the reasoning in the world will not make something exist if it doesn't. Reasoning bow to the hard facts on the ground, because it is much more likely to have faulty reasoning than it is to have atoms behave contrary to the "laws" of the Universe.

What that means is that if you want to demonstrate a First Cause, you'll need physical evidence.

Now, back to our much funner stuff:

[Image: oqyvAUz.jpg]

I'm not saying math is reality. I'm saying you can't argue that there is an instance in which you can use quantities in the physical reality and not invoke mathematics. And physical evidence is not enough to serve as a foundation for a worldview. You have to have cogent first principles that actually warrant the use of evidence.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 09:31 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 09:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Defending the PSR
Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/#H3
If you read sections 2 and 3 in this article, you can get a better understanding of the PSR as Leibniz formulated it. As Leibniz argued, the PSR is fundamental to the concept of identity.

Quote:Leibniz goes further still by claiming that for every predicate that is true of a subject, there must be a set of other true predicates which constitute a sufficient reason for its being true. This he calls the principle of sufficient reason—that there must be a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise. This is why he uses words like "foundation" and "reason" in the quotation above. Unless this were true, Leibniz argues, the universe would not make any sense, and science and philosophy both would be impossible (see, for example, New Essays on Human Understanding, preface, p. 66).

Bolding mine.

Still bare assertion, still only demonstrable within the universe and not demonstrable for the universe itself, heads into fallacy of composition and special pleading territory when it gets into contingent versus necessary later on.

Still fails to actually establish that the universe is contingent.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
08-02-2017, 09:33 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 09:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Math and physical reality are inseparable.

This is simply not true. The idea is incoherent. The model of a thing is not the thing itself. A language is not the thing that it describes.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 09:42 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 08:51 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 08:39 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Mathematics doesn't "explain" anything. It's a tool to model reality, and for the most part, does so imperfectly. Scientific calculation is all about approximation. Scientific theories, whether mathematical or not, are always provisional and subject to modification/falsification/refutation. The certainty that you seek is a chimera. It doesn't exist.

Are you certain?

Whoever said anyone was seeking "certainty" ?
Isn't he cute.
A 17 YO lecturing at us.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 10:13 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 09:33 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Math and physical reality are inseparable.

This is simply not true. The idea is incoherent. The model of a thing is not the thing itself. A language is not the thing that it describes.

But I qualified this statement. I'm not saying math and physical reality are identical. I'm saying you cannot separate math from reality. Quantities in physical reality operate with the same properties as the quantities in abstract math.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 10:13 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 04:17 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 09:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm not saying math is reality. I'm saying you can't argue that there is an instance in which you can use quantities in the physical reality and not invoke mathematics. And physical evidence is not enough to serve as a foundation for a worldview. You have to have cogent first principles that actually warrant the use of evidence.

You're assuming that a First Cause necessarily implies a world-view ... but you still need to demonstrate the existence of this first cause.

Furthermore, I haven't yet talked about a worldview, nor do I care to, because even if this deeply flawed "reasoning" were iron-clad, it still wouldn't have a single thing to say about the worldview you're trying to smuggle in under its skirts.

Lastly, my cogent first principle is that reality is objective. What's your problem with that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 10:21 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 09:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 08:51 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Are you certain?

Whoever said anyone was seeking "certainty" ?
Isn't he cute.
A 17 YO lecturing at us.

If you have no epistemic certainty at your foundation, then the structure crumbles. Let's say you're 99% certain that your senses are valid. Then you're 99% certain that if your senses are reliable, science works. You can see there will be a cascading effect. By the time you get to any scientific claim, you aren't actually talking about knowledge anymore. You're talking about a probabalistic assessment of any proposition. You have a semi-justified, possibly true, semi-belief. This isn't knowledge.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: