Re: belief, faith, truth
Le 30-janv.-06, à 18:49, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit : I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle difference in language between Danny and Stathis. Danny refers to believe in. I don't think a scientist ever believes in a theory. All right, you use believe in (quote included!) for the religious belief of the fundamentalist. Still I hope you agree that the scientist believes in its theory, if only to be able to acknowledge his theory is wrong when experiments refute it. Cf Belief = B with (Bp - p) NOT being a theorem! That implies taking the theory as the foundation of all further beliefs. In fact most scientists don't believe any theory, except in the provisional sense of thinking them likely, or worth entertaining, or suggestive. OK, but this is independent of the fact that, still, the scientist can believe in (in the scientist modest way of self-interrogation) in the *object* of his theory. Most naturalist believe in a physical universe, or a nature or whatever. We wouldn't discuss about a theory of everything if we were not believing in ... something. Religious faith differs from ordinary belief and scientific hypothesizing not only by the lack of evidence but even more in the assertion of certainity. I think everyone has religious faith. Do you believe that on faith ;-) Certainly everyone takes for granted things on very slim evidence (I heard it in the hall way). But I don't think they have religious faith which implies not just lack of evidence, but a determination to believe in spite of contrary evidence - certainity that any contrary evidence must be wrong just because it is contrary. To believe in something in spite of refutation is bad faith. To believe in something in spite of contrary evidences ? It depends. I can imagine situations where I would find that a remarkable attitude, and I can imagine others where I would take it again as bad faith. Today, a scientist who pretends no doing philosophy or theology, is just a scientist taking for granted Aristotle theology. No problem in case he is aware of the fact, so that, as a scientist, he can still be open to the idea that Aristotle theology can be falsified, but if he is not aware of the fact, then he will not been able to make sense of the data---a little like Roland Omnes who concludes his analysis of QM that there is a point where we need to abandon faith in ... reason. Personally, I consider that abandoning faith in reason in front of difficulties, is just worse that abandoning faith in truth (whatever it is). That would be an unquestioning certitude that there is a reality independent of all opinion? Well, that is the bet, or hope, of the non solipsist scientist. Popper said that faith in reason is faith in your own reason but above all faith in the reason of the others. And then Platonism is the faith in a reality independent of all opinion, indeed, like the faith in the fact that 17 is prime independently of us. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: belief, faith, truth
Le 30-janv.-06, à 17:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom) wrote : Bruno wrote: I think everyone has religious faith... Amen, Bruno, and Ben also! This is of course a searing statement, Its consequences are no less searing I'm afraid. It means that an atheist is someone who has some religious faith, for example in Aristotle Nature or in a material universe, but has lost the ability to put it in doubt, making him/her unaware of the dogmatic character of what he/her has faith in. This prevent progress in research. I think. which goes back to why the word theology is taboo. As it's commonly said, the two topics to stay away from in conversation are religion and politics. I think theology is taboo because it has been appropriated by politic power about 1600 years ago (Emperor Constantine). But, without using the word religion, we can safely say that we all have some basic belief that we hold to in order to make the decisions of our practical living, whether they are every-day decisions like holding a grudge against someone (or not), or bigger decisions about our course in life such as getting married (or not) etc. The modern (and leading up to the modern) reductionist philosophy has split these particulars apart from our musings about universals, so that people typically no longer see any connection between them. (Talk about going in the opposite direction from Everything!) In a way it is rather convenient because we can live out personal lives the way we want to. But the reality is that in being set totally free from universals, we become enslaved. The ultimate destination of rationalism in a totally closed system is something like pan-critical rationalism, where we end up in a swirl of confusion. Even then, we really are having faith that somehow the system is set up such that things will work out OK. If we didn't, then what are we left with? In order to have freedom we need at least some constraints. For example, take the axiomatic system. This applies also to the Mathematics: Is it really... thread. So there needs to be a faith that something is fixed, even if we don't yet know, or perhaps believe that we can never truly know, what is it. This something is what is called truth. Yes. And Truth is the first primary hypostasis of the machine which looks inside herself. Now, what the machine really discovers is its own Abyssal Ignorance. Truth is what we are or feel to be ignorant of. We need it to be able to doubt our theories, as you say. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: belief, faith, truth
Le 01-févr.-06, à 16:11, John M a écrit : Bruno and list: We are so sure about our infinite capabilities to understand the entirety (wholeness) and follow all existence (whatever you may call it) by our human mind and logic... Who can be sure of that? I like to leave a 'slot' open (maybe WE are in the restricted slot?) which is not accessible by our idideationaleans. That's the relief with the loebian machine. She is forced to let a rather big slot open. Remember that the first sentences of the 3-personne are the humility principle and the modesty principle. It is just that for us to remain consistant we must accept that the so-called material world is the last emanation of our ignorance. Godel-Lob-Solovay: ignorance is structured. Reality - whatever it may be identified by - is not a human artifact. We are in complete agreement. But with the comp HYP (or weaker) Reality, whatever it is, is an artifact resulting from some mixing between lobian (not human) ignorancxe and arithmetical truth. This does not contradict what you say. As this list agreed (at least I did) it is better to talk about a '(1st person?) perception of reality' i.e. of the part we can muster and in ways we can handle. It may include the 'Subject' concepts. But if you refuse to bet on something thrid person describable operating at the roots of the first person perception, you take the risk of solipsism (the contrary of humility). Of course, any third person proposition (even theorem in arithmetic) is doubtful, and some amount of faith is asked upon. Bon week-end, Bruno
Re: belief, faith, truth
Brent, list, [Ben] At this point I'm not talking about aspiring. I'm talking straightforwardly about being in control, making decisions -- at least for oneself. Some want more power than that. Some have more power than that and don't want it. Some have all that and want still more. Parents reasonable want control over their children. Most of us have had the opportunity to test our self-control, resist destructive temptations in life, etc. There's nothing any more or less dualist (I don't know what you're getting at) about self-governance than about self-awareness or any other reflexive sort of thing. Making one's own choices, being free to do that, having the backbone to do it, etc., these are everyday issues. [Brent] I guess I've lost the thread of this discussion. You're saying people value/want self-control - but sometimes they don't. Sometimes they have self-control - but sometimes they don't. I gather that a non-trivial decision means one between choices that evoke negative emotions, i.e. no good choices. Really, I've been talking about means, ends, other such elements, and trying to place them into familiar contexts, such as that of wanting them and having them. You've been adding an unncessary conceptual layer by referring to them as values, general ends, as if this were some substrate or genus shared by them. If something is a means, then it has value as a means, but what have you added by saying this? And it's an arbitrary choice of complication. You could say that a given thing, as a means, also: 1. is a decision point of some consequence in its role as a means 2. is used in various ways in its role as a means 3. is an end in being a means (i.e., its being a means, its manner of being a means, gives it instrumental value), 4. is a check in being a means (i.e., its being a means, its manner of being a means, makes it telling and evidentiary). Now, if you say, you mean it can have evidentiary _value_?, I'll respond it can and very likely will have that, too, though it's not what I said or meant. Then when I talk about decidings, you want to conceive of deciding as a value too., etc. To say that something has value, is to say that it is an end (an end to some extent, the extent varying as the value). To say that something has value as a means is to say that that thing is an end, because it is a means to some further end. It's true and important but it's distracting you. It's as if there were four ice cream cones including a chocolate one, and you added a second scoop, chocolate, to each of all four. Chocolate is cool, chocolate is deep, yet, and yet, they're not all chocolate, though they're quite capable for chocolate. When you asked, But is the value of logic and evidence inherent or only instrumental? you were asking, are logic and evidence an end in themselves or are they a secondary end, an end whose achievement is mainly a means to a further end? You had said it response to my saying, Now, valuings and ideals are a side of the theoretical which tends to get minimized in the context of the practical-theoretical distinction, just as the difference in the practical between decision-making and performance tends to get sloughed over also in the context of practical-theoretical distinction. But there's no knowledge based on logic evidence without valuing of logic evidence... It may be that, in order to clarify my notion of 'end,' I should say culmination, a kind of ending -- not just 'telos' but 'teleiosis,' reaching the end, actualization. The check is the confirming it, a kind of solidification and holding in completeness. Now, when we pick or take something, sometimes it's so direct that we don't think of means as being saliently involved. But often enough there are these intermediate stages we go through, and intermediating things. If the decision is regarded as a kind of main cause, those middles appear, relative to the situation of interest, as intermediate causes, helpers, facilitating causes. Of course they're also intermediate effects. In any case we regard them as means. If the goal is achieved, effected, sometimes it's so directly obvious that we don't think of any checks as being involved. But often enough there are these collateral and at least a bit later things or events to which we look. If the goal is regarded as a kind of main effect, those things or events on the side or further in time appear, relative to the situation of interest, as side effects, after-effects, evidentiary effects. Just as in advance one may have desired hoped for the end, one may have imagined and anti! cipated the collateral effects, the evidences. One then also will have hoped for them, but only because one hopes for them as signs of the goal's having been achieved. They aren't means to the goal, they're beyond and in addition to the goal in a rather similar sense as the means are beyond and in addition to the beginning, the deciding
Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
Norman Samish wrote: Hi John, Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point out how ridiculous the concept is Actually, with all due respect to John, I failed to see how his original message (below) in any way illustrated "how ridiculous" the concept of heaven is. It may suggest that it is inconceivable that we could live for eternity leading anything like the life we know now, but his points aren't in the slightest pursuasive to me. I think the problem is a lack of imagination. Why would I have to choose to spend the afterlife with a certain spouse. I would assume the ties that bind us together here probably wouldn't apply. Why would I need to choose a body to be in that matched something from this earlier stage? I'll readily concede all of this is pure speculation, and so I'll just stop here and say that I think assumptions that an afterlife would be ridiculous is as much speculation as assumptions in a specific afterlife experience. - and no, I don't think heaven, hell, etc., are even remotely likely. I think that when I'm dead, I'm dead, never again to be congnizant. Now this statement is fraught with all kinds of issues and problems for me. Clearly you do not accept the QTI. No problem there. I've never really sold myself on that either. But if it is true that our focus for understanding should be on the first person, is there any meaning in saying you are dead "never again" to be aware? Isn't it just crazy speculation on your part that anything is continuing? And even if we accept there is some "reality" or "truth" to the world "out there"- the objective appearing environment that we seem to interact in- are you saying we are to assume that it will continue for ever and ever, but never replicate your experiences that you had in your life? Or perhaps we should assume that it should end at some point, and that there will never be another multiverse. Was all of this a one time deal? If so, how do you explain such a "miracle" without invoking some intelligence. How can something (big bang) happen only once in all of existence and be a natural phenomenon? It seems to me that at least from a perspective, the "block multiverse" view makes sense. It must exist eternally- I just can't wrap my mind around a "pre-existence" era or a "post existence" era. A careful examination of time does seem to suggest that, as D. Deutsch says, "different times are just special cases of different universes," each existing eternally from at least some perspective. I'm not so sure that there are yes/no answers to many of the questions that we ask. Even a question such as "is there a god" may have an answer that depends on your location in time or in the multiverse. If it is ever possible in the future to replicate my experiences on a computer through artificial intelligence, and the AI me asks the question, then obviously the answer should be yes. But perhaps there really was a natural, fundamental reality in which the original me existed in which the answer would be no. Or take a Tipler-like theory that has the universe evolving to the point that it can replicate or emulate itself. The question "is there a god" at the point that a universal computer exists would be yes, while the question at some prior point would be at best "unknown." I do not want to toss out there there is fundamental truth, fundamental reality of some nature, but any questions going to the underlying nature of existence seems to not easily lend itself to yes/no answers. Is there a fundamental "realness" to the physical world, or is this all a "machine dream."? Why isn't it both, depending on where you are at? Now some would accuse of speculation here, but on close inspection it seems I'm only choosing one form of speculation over another. Does this mean science is pointless? Absolutely not. Science opens great doors of understanding in, for instance, describing how a description of the multiverse fits observable data. However, I am simply choosing not to close doors in the absence of proof against. The thing I'm agnostic about (defining "agnostic" as "without knowledge") is whether an infinitely powerful God is reponsible for the universe we see. And if this God exists, why? And where did IT come from? Despite arguments I have made previously, I would say I most closely fit the agnostic description for God as well. I certainly do not believe in a God separate and apart from our existence that "created" the universe. Any answer for me will be some form of a self explanatory, or bootstrapping concept in which God and all of existence are really one in the same. I must admit I am partial to a Tipler like theory in which the universe evolves to the point that it can create itself. Then again you are left without a yes-no answer. Does it even make sense to ask whether the universe evolved until it was able to create its creator, or whether God existed first? Its a
Re: belief, faith, truth
The easy answer for you, John, is that given an infinite afterlife, an intelligent being would probably experience everything that it is possible to experience. Heck, eventually I'd probably even get around to checking out what life as John M was all about. Danny Mayes John M wrote: Norman: just imagine a fraction of the infinite afterlife: to sing the pius chants for just 30,000 years by 'people' in heaven with Alzheimers, arthritis, in pain and senility? Or would you choose an earlier phase of terrestrial life for the introduction in heaven: let us say: the fetal age? or school-years with the mentality of a teenager? Would you love spouse No 1,2,or 3? Would you forget about the biggest blunder you did and regretted all your life? Or would you prefer the eternal brimstone-burning (what a waste in energy) without a painkiller? I did not ask about your math, how many are involved over the millennia? I asked a Muslim lately, what the huris are and what the female inhabitants of heaven get? An agnostic has to define what he does 'not' know, hasn't he? Just as an atheist requires a god 'not' to believe in. We are SOOO smart! Have a good day John M --- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if there is no God, those that decide to have faith, and have the ability to have faith, in a benign God have gained quite a bit. They have faith in an afterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph of good over evil, etc. Without this faith, life for many would be intolerable. If there is no God, there is no afterlife and they get a zero. If there is a God, there is an after life and they get infinity. So how can they lose? Maybe Pascal's Wager deserves more consideration. Norman Samish ~~ - Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth Even within the context that Pascal intended it is fallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham and there is no god, you have given up freedom of thought, you have given up responsibility for your own morals and ethics, you have denied yourself some pleasures of the mind as well as pleasures of the flesh. It's a bad bargain. Brent Meeker The Christian religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth. --- H. L. Mencken Stathis Papaioannou wrote: That's right: if you believe in the Christian God and are wrong, the real God (who may be worshipped by an obscure group numbering a few dozen people, or by aliens, or by nobody at all) may be angry and may punish you. An analogous situation arises when creationists demand that the Biblical version of events be taught alongside evolutionary theory in schools: if we are to be fair, the creation myths of every religious sect should be taught. - Stathis Papaioannou On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:36:46AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: [Incidently, can you see the logical flaw in Pascal's Wager as described above?] I always wondered why it should be the Christian account of God and Heaven that was relevant.
Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
Hi Danny, Thanks for your interesting comments. I've responded below. Norman Norman Samish wrote: Hi John, Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point out how ridiculous the concept is. Actually, with all due respect to John, I failed to see how his original message (below) in any way illustrated "how ridiculous" the concept of heaven is. It may suggest that it is inconceivable that we could live for eternity leading anything like the life we know now, but his points aren't in the slightest pursuasive to me. I think the problem is a lack of imagination. Why would I have to choose to spend the afterlife with a certain spouse. I would assume the ties that bind us together here probably wouldn't apply. Why would I need to choose a body to be in that matched something from this earlier stage? I'll readily concede all of this is pure speculation, and so I'll just stop here and say that I think assumptions that an afterlife would be ridiculous is as much speculation as assumptions in a specific afterlife experience. (NS) OK, I can't speak for you, only for me. The concept of an afterlife - heaven, hell, or whatever - is ridiculous TO ME. I can't prove anafterlife doesn't exist - maybe it does with some minute probability - but if so it's existence is immaterial to me since I can't communicate with it. - and no, I don't think heaven, hell, etc., are even remotely likely. I think that when I'm dead, I'm dead, never again to be cognizant. Now this statement is fraught with all kinds of issues and problems for me. Clearly you do not accept the QTI. No problem there. I've never really sold myself on that either. But if it is true that our focus for understanding should be on the first person, is there any meaning in saying you are dead "never again" to be aware? Isn't it just crazy speculation on your part that anything is continuing? (NS) No - I don't think it's "crazy speculation." That term, in my view, would apply to after-death awareness. This viewpoint is logical because it is supported by my experience, which tells me that there is no convincing evidence that anybody's awareness has continued beyond their death. And even if we accept there is some "reality" or "truth" to the world "out there"- the objective appearing environment that we seem to interact in- are you saying we are to assume that it will continue for ever and ever, but never replicate your experiences that you had in your life? Or perhaps we should assume that it should end at some point, and that there will never be another multiverse. Was all of this a one time deal? If so, how do you explain such a "miracle" without invoking some intelligence. How can something (big bang) happen only once in all of existence and be a natural phenomenon? (NS) I can't speak for a multiverse. I agree that a multiverse consisting of all possible universes may exist, and may even be required if space-time is infinite. All possible universes must include an infinity of universes identical to this one. But, to me, this is meaningless speculation since there is no way to communicate between these hypothetical universes. My doppelganger in an identical universe can have no influence on my fate in my own universe. He is irrelevant.It seems to me that at least from a perspective, the "block multiverse" view makes sense. It must exist eternally- I just can't wrap my mind around a "pre-existence" era or a "post existence" era. A careful examination of time does seem to suggest that, as D. Deutsch says, "different times are just special cases of different universes," each existing eternally from at least some perspective.I'm not so sure that there are yes/no answers to many of the questions that we ask. Even a question such as "is there a god" may have an answer that depends on your location in time or in the multiverse. If it is ever possible in the future to replicate my experiences on a computer through artificial intelligence, and the AI me asks the question, then obviously the answer should be yes. But perhaps there really was a natural, fundamental reality in which the original me existed in which the answer would be no. Or take a Tipler-like theory that has the universe evolving to the point that it can replicate or emulate itself. The question "is there a god" at the point that a universal computer exists would be yes, while the question at some prior point would be at best "unknown." (NS) I don't deny that a future AI might be able to accurately replicate my brain and thought patterns. I can't imagine why it would want to. But even if it did, this would not be"me" returning from the dead - it would be a simulation by a AI.I do not want to toss out there there is fundamental truth, fundamental
Re: belief, faith, truth
Norman wrote: I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if there is no God, those that decide to have faith, and have the ability to have faith,in a benign God have gained quite a bit. They have faith in an afterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph of good over evil, etc. Without this faith, life for many would be intolerable. If there is no God, there is no afterlife and they get a zero. If there is a God, there is an after life and they get infinity. So how can they lose?Maybe Pascal's Wagerdeserves more consideration. Norman Samish Myopinion about Pascal's Wager isthat we tryto comparethings that we can't quantify or measure, or at least that we don't know the relative measure of the things we are trying to compare. It involves betting on the existence of somethinginfinite based on a totallyundefined probability distribution. I think that it is indeterminate, like dividing zero by zero, or infinity by infinity. However, I think this same mistake is done in talking about multiverses, too, as I've brought up before. Tom Caylor
Re: belief, faith, truth
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 30-janv.-06, à 18:49, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno
Marchal wrote: Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit
: I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle
difference in language between Danny and Stathis.
Danny refers to "believe in". I don't think a
scientist ever "believes in" a theory. All right, you use
"believe in" (quote included!) for the "religious belief of the
fundamentalist". Still I hope you agree that the scientist
believes in its theory, if only to be able to acknowledge his
theory is wrong when experiments refute it. Cf
Belief = B with (Bp - p) NOT being a theorem! That
implies taking the theory as the foundation of all further
beliefs. In fact most scientists don't "believe" any theory, except
in the provisional sense of thinking them likely, or worth
entertaining, or suggestive. OK, but this
is independent of the fact that, still, the scientist can
"believe in" (in the scientist modest way of self-interrogation)
in the *object* of his theory. Most naturalist "believe in" a
physical universe, or a nature or whatever. We
wouldn't discuss about a "theory of everything" if we were not
believing in ... something. Religious faith differs from
ordinary belief and scientific hypothesizing not only by
the lack of evidence but even more in the assertion of
certainity. I think everyone has religious
faith. Do you believe that on faith ;-) Certainly
everyone takes for granted things on very slim evidence ("I heard
it in the hall way"). But I don't think they have "religious
faith" which implies not just lack of evidence, but a determination
to believe in spite of contrary evidence - certainity that any
contrary evidence must be wrong just because it is contrary.
Bruno:To believe in something in spite of refutation is "bad
faith".To believe in something in spite of contrary evidences ? It
depends. I can imagine situations where I would find that a remarkable
attitude, and I can imagine others where I would take it again as bad
faith.
I agree. I thinkpart of this is a matter of preference of
terms. Meeker et al want to use "religious faith" for what Bruno says is
"bad faith", and I agree that is bad faith. I'm content with leaving off
the word "religious", and just use "faith" to refer to holding to the
possibility of the truth of a certain proposition until it is
refuted. Today, a scientist who pretends no
doing philosophy or theology, is just a scientist taking for
granted Aristotle theology. No problem in case he is aware of
the fact, so that, as a scientist, he can still be open to the
idea that Aristotle theology can be falsified, but if he is not
aware of the fact, then he will not been able to make sense of
the data---a little like Roland Omnes who concludes his analysis
of QM that there is a point where we need to abandon faith
in ... reason. Personally, I consider that abandoning
faith in reason in front of difficulties, is just worse that
abandoning faith in truth (whatever it
is). That would be an unquestioning certitude that there
is a reality independent of all opinion?Well, that
is the bet, or hope, of the non solipsist scientist. Popper said that
faith in reason is faith in your own reason but above all faith in the
reason of the others.And then Platonism is the faith in a reality
independent of all opinion, indeed, like the faith in the fact that 17
is prime independently of us.Bruno
And here we havea couple of things (reason and reality) whose
existencewe should all have faith in. So none of us shouldbe
scared by the word "faith" (in reason and reality). By this I mean simply
that we should not abandon our pursuit of truth. If all there is is
opinion, then we're all wasting our time.
Tom Caylor
