tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post4554429161825042547..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: Review of Craig vs. Krauss DebateRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-36149936245758824722012-11-28T10:26:08.848-05:002012-11-28T10:26:08.848-05:00Thanks man, I definitely appreciate your comments!...Thanks man, I definitely appreciate your comments!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-40903747598850283312012-11-28T00:49:24.425-05:002012-11-28T00:49:24.425-05:00Regarding Mark's link to Dr. Krauss's foll...Regarding Mark's link to Dr. Krauss's follow-up, is there a way to find if it was indeed posted by Dr. Krauss? I ask because the author of the post is PZ Meyers, and there is no explicit mention of Meyers's relationship to Dr. Krauss nor the source of this statement.<br />I have sent Dr. Krauss an email through his website and await a response.<br /><br />I will also say that I appreciate the interchanges concerning the validity of Dr. Craig's arguments, it definitely shines light on the need to be critical. Thank you for posting this, Randy, and for responding to these posts!eacousineauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892791605109620381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-91801476054587683412012-04-16T17:34:20.800-04:002012-04-16T17:34:20.800-04:00Hello Hooded. I'm afraid much of your critique...Hello Hooded. I'm afraid much of your critique is simply posturing, as it interacts with no specifics of the debate and has one relevant <i>a priori</i> consideration. That one relevant consideration is Craig's usage of too many arguments for too short of a timeperiod. I think this is at least partially the fault of his opponents. Craig does mostly the same core of arguments over and over, and if they believe they cannot discuss adequately all of them (which I do not blame them because of the voluminous material), they should negotiate "three arguments per side" or something.<br /><br />But know that not being able to refute <b>all</b> of the arguments at once is no excuse for not being able to refute <b>any</b> of them (see atheist philosopher Peter Millican for a brief strategy on debating WLC if you don't think you can cover all the material).<br /><br />If you even watched the debate (somewhat unlikely, given you don't interact with any of it), I hope you didn't laugh. That would evince a misunderstanding of the debate topic. "Is there evidence for God?" is a virtual auto-win for the theist. Something counts as evidence for a proposition just in case the proposition is more probable given some fact than it would have been had that fact not been present (see my recent article here on "Definition and Role of Evidence"). In that case, there is evidence for God (fine tuning being just one).<br /><br />The rest of your comment is just rhetoric, and not particularly good rhetoric at that. It shows a misunderstanding of intelligent design (it doesn't follow from intelligent design that all of the designed objects are intelligent, just that they are the product of intelligent design). No one thinks a craftsman's table wasn't designed because it won't pass a calculus exam.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-25399472817477335872012-04-15T05:25:40.872-04:002012-04-15T05:25:40.872-04:00Dr.Craig squeezes many already-debunked arguments ...Dr.Craig squeezes many already-debunked arguments in his lectures, in order to ensure that some of them remain answered in the first segment, so he can repeat them over and over again in the other segments. Those arguments have been individuality refuted, but they can be easily abused as firepower in a debate that is confined by time limits. The spin doctor didn't come out on the top. He only appeased the biased, added the doubt of the in-between, and made us atheists laugh at this ineptitude and deception. His debating strategies are cheap, evasive and lowly. After reading Russell's debates, watching his debates is like watching a charlatan, not a professional debater. He is a living proof that intelligent design is false. Sorry if I popped your bubble, but that Gish Gallop deserves no respect or admiration, especially after the public humiliation he felt after this particular debate.Hoodedthishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00313402102976924479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-40213774137645365322012-02-28T13:45:45.921-05:002012-02-28T13:45:45.921-05:00Chris,
It seems to me that you do not understand w...Chris,<br />It seems to me that you do not understand what empirical evidence is. Krauss argued against belief in God by use of the multiverse and by asserting that the laws of physics are "accidental". First of all, there is NO evidence for the existence of a multiverse. The multiverse is based on predictions made by certain theories. Granted, theories need evidence and must make predictions, but that doesn't mean that the predictions are themselves based on empirical evidence. Leonard Susskind, himself a proponent of the multiverse, has stated that there is no evidence for a multiverse, and that the best physicists have in assuming it exists is "good theoretical reason" (which is distinct from evidence). And so you know...a theory can make NUMEROUS predictions, so the multiverse is not the only prediction physical theories make.<br />As to the "accidental laws"...that's entirely unfalsifiable, constituting as metaphysics, not science. Of all the ideas I've heard, an accidental universe sounds by far the most implausible and exists merely to fit nicely within a materialistic worldview (materialism is philosophy, btw).<br />That said, your statement is refuted.mens_in_umbrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02491236564042162208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-88293893334498062642012-02-28T13:37:34.626-05:002012-02-28T13:37:34.626-05:00Chris,
It's clear that you don't know what...Chris,<br />It's clear that you don't know what empirical evidence is. The multiverse is not based on empirical evidence - it's based on certain hypothesis' which certain theories predict. Yes, theories need evidence and must make predictions, but that doesn't mean that the prediction is itself empirical. Leonard Susskind has pointed out himself that there is no evidence for a multiverse, and that the best physicists have is good "theoretical reason" (which is distinct from evidence). That said, your assertion is refuted.mens_in_umbrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02491236564042162208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-19848561226956267702011-07-08T13:28:40.318-04:002011-07-08T13:28:40.318-04:00It was an interesting one, thank you for engaging!...It was an interesting one, thank you for engaging!Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-46962772045941805702011-07-07T19:24:35.052-04:002011-07-07T19:24:35.052-04:00Yet why should I take the data as true? What reaso...Yet why should I take the data as true? What reason is there to say that the collection and interpretation of data is both true and false? Pragmatism won't work, for why should I accept pragmatism? Indeed, why can I not just say it both is and is not pragmatic? As to your second comment, the rule you are looking for is the law of noncontradiction. If it does not apply, you cannot correct my understand of it. If it does, the observation is wrong. I'm afraid at this point we're going around and around in circles, saying pretty much identical things. But I do appreciate the discussion!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-85995280582321508252011-07-07T10:09:30.507-04:002011-07-07T10:09:30.507-04:00I wasn't meaning to say you were lying, it jus...I wasn't meaning to say you were lying, it just felt to me like the point was obvious enough that it seemed you were ignoring a pretty basic rule in logic to disagree. A thing being in one place logically entails that it is not in any other, otherwise it is in the other place, rather than the first. It can't be in both places. That is why the two-slit experiment defies logic.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-53654222945717221222011-07-07T08:34:37.770-04:002011-07-07T08:34:37.770-04:00"Quickly, I would say this: when you ask &quo..."Quickly, I would say this: when you ask "which of 'you'...", you're assuming there are two, not one, which is the argument."<br /><br />I take this to mean you don't accept the observations in the two-slit experiment? I don't see any other way to interpret this repeat of your previous sentence. If you say you don't see a contradiction, and then call the fact that there are two an "assumption", we're not going to get very far. Yes, it is <i>assumed</i> that if Randy Everest is in two places at the same time, there are two things. The question is whether this is possible. Its a thought experiment, not an argument.<br /><br />As for the rest: once again, not the universe as a whole, but all of this language you are using <i>is represented</i> by the experimental data of quantum mechanics. All of the implications of the law of non-contradiction being ignored seem to be in keeping with the observations (even down to who is observing, and the observation itself). Again, not the universe as a whole, but the fabric of space-time itself.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-90767707227320923772011-07-06T23:48:50.805-04:002011-07-06T23:48:50.805-04:00What about time travel? You could go back in time ...What about time travel? You could go back in time to a time when you still existed. The objection there could be that it's not really the "same person" since one of you would be younger. <br /><br />Although, with that objection, you could then say of two exact copies in the same time of the same age that there is still something different. I'm reminded of philosophy of language. At the semantic level of sentences, there are a variety of things denoting context. So, two people uttering prima facie contradictory statements, like "It is raining now" and "It is not raining now" can be resolved because at the semantic level, you see one person is in San Francisco and the other is in New York. Location of the speaker, along with time of utterance, and other factors are captured. Just soemthing to consider.Mike Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05034037930336299849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-62562534200807821012011-07-06T23:45:45.012-04:002011-07-06T23:45:45.012-04:00Lee, suffice it to say, if you're right, you&#...Lee, suffice it to say, if you're right, you're wrong! But in any case, it's not very charitable to assume I am being dishonest, now! :)<br /><br />Quickly, I would say this: when you ask "which of 'you'...", you're assuming there are two, not one, which is the argument. <br /><br />The appeal to gravity is merely to say that if there is no law of noncontradiction, then gravity can exist and I can say it doesn't, and it doesn't. And even that's not right to the exclusion of its opposite. And that. And so on <i>ad infinitum</i>. For any contradictory rule not so objective applied becomes arbitrary. At that point, it's just one's opinion versus mine, and the difference is epistemological, not ontological. And that preceding sentence can be taken to mean "pink elephants are bargling on the moon," for there is no objectively correct meaning not compatible with any other.<br /><br />Yes, I concede the laws of logic, being foundational, are circular, though not viciously so. They are transcendental in a Kantian sense. Try to deny them and you'll use them. That is exactly the point. Most philosophers do not believe logic does not apply to the universe.<br /><br />Again, why should we believe the law of noncontradiction arbitrarily applies? Any reason you give must either default to the law itself or reduce to one's own opinion. For suppose we say, "we can reason it out." But then what is to say that this reasoning is not both correct and incorrect? Well, it just is. Or perhaps we further go and say, "our experience confirms this is a general truth, but it doesn't always apply." What makes that true? You can't be sure the law applies to your situation at all, for you must use it in order to judge that it does apply and does not not apply. What the law of noncontradiction may reduce to are simply physical laws. But then we have a problem, as inference itself is non-physical (as a distinct property; it is an abstraction).<br /><br />This is why Krauss is taking such a ribbing out there. Not because he is one of the best philosophers known to man; but because he is one of the worst!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-66468001838506150542011-07-06T09:25:06.555-04:002011-07-06T09:25:06.555-04:00"I don't see anything inherently logicall..."I don't see anything inherently logically contradictory about one person being in two places at once"<br /><br />I presume you believe in souls? If you, Randy Everest, were in two places at the same time, which of you is occupied by the soul? If only one has it(because only one can), my point is valid. If both have it, what if one dies? Is Randy Everest then both alive and not alive? If the dead soul goes to heaven, is Randy Everest both in heaven, and not in heaven? When the second Randy Everest dies, did Randy Everest both die on Tuesday(arbitrarily chosen day), and not on Tuesday?<br /><br />I can belabor this point only insofar as it doesn't try both our patience, but suffice it to say if you don't see the contradiction, you don't see the contradiction. I submit that there is one, it is demonstrable (and indeed has been, by far better men than I), and I feel like you aren't being very honest about this. We both know gravity, or any other scientific theory, is not on the same philosophical footing as identity, so I don't find this appeal compelling (and neither should you). You can deny gravity with the law of non-contradiction intact.<br /><br />Moreover, I am not implying that this law would no longer apply to the universe as a whole. That is not what Krauss argued, and it is not what I have argued. The thought, at least to my mind, is that if a logical contradiction is demonstrated at the quantum level, then, as you say, the law both does not apply, and does. You are essentially saying that a contradiction can't exist, because it would be a contradiction, which is to assume your conclusion. I don't like it, it's beyond counter-intuitive, but just as the newtonian physics doesn't apply in areas where relativity is salient, it seems the laws of logic may be thwarted at the most fundamental level of existence(perhaps awaiting a better explanatory model), irrespective of our protestations and intuitions. All we can do is observe the results of the tests, and this has been tested into the equine cemetery, to degrees of accuracy that eliminate anything but philosophical skepticism about the event itself.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-41534912839776056992011-07-05T20:17:37.652-04:002011-07-05T20:17:37.652-04:00Hi Lee. I both appreciate and concede the differen...Hi Lee. I both appreciate and concede the difference between conceivability (as it relates to the imagination, for instance) and possibility in the logical sense. However, I don't see anything inherently logically contradictory about one person being in two places at once; of course if we assume they are two people we are also assuming what we are trying to prove! Now perhaps you mean bodies in general, but again I don't see the logical problem, though I do well see the physical problem. In any case, consider that if the law of noncontradiction does not apply to the universe, then it does. For I can say that it does, and if it does not, there is no principle by which we may refute that statement. In fact, every statement about the universe is true. Even if you bring the strongest evidence to the contrary, you must rely on the principle that the evidence says what it does and not what I say it does. I have an extended defense of the law of noncontradiction elsewhere on this site, but suffice it to say I could deny gravity or anything else extremely obviously true without the law. "Well that's preposterous!" you might say, and you'd be right. But in that case, it's so much the worse for logical impossibilities!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-62209830286663699852011-07-03T15:44:54.410-04:002011-07-03T15:44:54.410-04:00I appreciate the clarification. I can certainly a...I appreciate the clarification. I can certainly agree that physical impossibility does not imply logical impossibility in all cases, but surely some must adhere. What if you tried to count the single particle at that crucial moment? Is it 1, or 2? It seems to me it would have to be 2 particles, yet since it is a single particle in two places, this comes out as 1=2. Another way to look at it is to ask the same question, but instead of particles, use people. If it is logically impossible for me to be in two places at once (for I could only be one of them), I don't see how particles are any different. It seems reasonable to view this state of affairs as conceivable, but not possible in the logical sense.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-9743845890897532822011-07-01T19:08:55.370-04:002011-07-01T19:08:55.370-04:00Hi Lee! I suppose I just don't see the logical...Hi Lee! I suppose I just don't see the logical problem in saying a certain particle can be in two places at once. A contradiction is saying "a" and "not-a" at the same time and in the same sense, and a logical impossibility is either a contradiction <i>or</i> or a proposition or state of affairs incompatible with a logically necessary truth.<br /><br />That said, does this particle fulfill either definition? It is not readily apparent that it does. First, the contradictory aspect is not necessarily fulfilled, for the experiment is not that particle 1 is in spot A at time T and not-A at time T, but that P1 is in A and B at T (please view not-A strictly as the negation of A, not simply at any point that is not identical to A). Now as to the second condition, Krauss never even attempted to argue why we should think this is logically necessary. Chances are it never occurred to him precisely because he's not a philosopher. That is not meant to be rude or condescending, but rather a fact. <br /><br />In any case, it certainly seems <b>physically</b> impossible for such an experiment to take place. But as we know, there is no reason why physical impossibility entails logical impossibility.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-40229311995187793022011-07-01T16:11:16.356-04:002011-07-01T16:11:16.356-04:00I'm curious why the two-slit experiment doesn&...I'm curious why the two-slit experiment doesn't defy logic. I don't think Krauss meant "not what we expect" when he pointed this out, I think he actually meant that it cannot be a fact that a single particle could be in two places at t=whatever. This is what the observation shows, and it would seem you either reject the observation, or admit a logical contradiction in reality. But perhaps, as before, I'm just missing something integral! I have looked around for an answer to this, and have only seen what you said.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Lee.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-36513328308236448482011-04-08T10:25:46.670-04:002011-04-08T10:25:46.670-04:00Consider it done, Dr. Mike! :)Consider it done, Dr. Mike! :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-78464198490398895242011-04-08T10:07:02.569-04:002011-04-08T10:07:02.569-04:00Can that work? I want to be a professor of philoso...Can that work? I want to be a professor of philosophy! It's way "sexier" than my real profession. From this point forward, consider me a Professor Emeritus. Randy, feel free to address me with some sort of honorific in future discussions.Mike Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05034037930336299849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-81601514507978650912011-04-07T12:33:31.975-04:002011-04-07T12:33:31.975-04:00What's odd is, as far as a brief Google search...What's odd is, as far as a brief Google search goes, this person appears to be Cathy Cooper, and everywhere she goes she takes pains to mention she is a professor of philosophy. I can't for the life of me though find where a professor of philosophy, or religion, is listed under the name of Cathy or Catherine Cooper (though I can find faculty of this name, it is either an MD or a degree in psychology). I'm not saying it's definitely not true, but if it is true, I am a little disconcerted that the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (with the well-known Principle of Sufficient Reason), was given as "whatever exists has an explanation of its existence, whether in its nature or a cause," instead of the "necessity of its own nature." Some of her counterarguments take on totally different ontological considerations when we add the term "necessary" to them!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-40698143698019205742011-04-07T12:09:06.223-04:002011-04-07T12:09:06.223-04:00Re the comment posted by "A is for Atheist&qu...Re the comment posted by "A is for Atheist". Randy posted some good replies at her/his website and it seems to me that A is for Atheist does not come across as having substantial philosophy training. Nevertheless, the exchange is illuminating.<br /><br />J.John I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-45983920530553942792011-04-06T22:34:15.154-04:002011-04-06T22:34:15.154-04:00I posted this as one perfect example of the violat...I posted this as one perfect example of the violation of the comments policy. Mark has sent me a number of abusive comments. Let's all try to be civil! Posting is a privilege, not a right. Have a good day all! :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-28054775596091456422011-04-06T22:01:08.555-04:002011-04-06T22:01:08.555-04:00Randy: You are a putz.Randy: You are a putz.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-26232822886437264932011-04-06T17:53:13.331-04:002011-04-06T17:53:13.331-04:00Thanks for the update Mike!Thanks for the update Mike!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-6523652171359492382011-04-06T14:25:04.579-04:002011-04-06T14:25:04.579-04:00Krauss posted a follow-up to the debate, if anyone...Krauss posted a follow-up to the debate, if anyone is interested. It is here on Pharyngula:<br /> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/lawrence_krauss_vs_william_lan.php#c3586935Mike Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05034037930336299849noreply@blogger.com