Disqus - Friends of Quine

Re: The Myth of Civil Rights

physicistdave — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:56:37 -0000

Elizabeth,

Perhaps part of the answer to your complaints about Rand Paul is that he simply is not as articulate as you are. In fact, while I like to think of myself as a fairly articulate guy, I am coming to think I am not nearly as articulate as you, either.

Seriously, have you tried to get a copy of this essay to Rand Paul? I honestly think that he would agree with what you wrote, but that he is not nearly as good at expressing it.

And, have you ever run for office yourself? You'd probably lose (simple prediction since most candidates do), but, ah, 'twould be interesting to follow your campaign!

All the best,

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Re: Climategate corrections and revisions 2 - Clive Crook - Politics - The Atlantic

physicistdave — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 03:25:53 -0000

I have a Ph.D. in physics (Stanford, 1983), I have extensive experience in computer modeling in a variety of fields, and I have been following computer climate modeling since the late '60s.

Clive is right, Doug is wrong. Anyone with significant experience in the art of computer modeling or data analysis should be skeptical of the global climate work unless and until it is confirmed by detailed predictions of future climate that agree with observations.

*That* is the scientific method. Anything less is pseudo-science. Given the complexity of the climate models (and the difficulty of the historical data reconstruction on which the models are based), only a fool trusts those models until they are confirmed through the usual scientific method.

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Sun, 12 May 2013 04:57:34 -0000

Bob Barron,

Was this really news to you????????

The fact that Einstein made clear that he did not believe in any sort of personal God has been public knowledge for many decades.

You really did not know this????

Einstein did of course use the word "God" in rhetorical or metaphorical senses (e.g., "God does not play dice with the universe") as do many atheists, the rough equivalent to saying ?By Jove!", which certainly does not imply belief in Roman paganism.

Do you also not know about the Larson/Witham study which showed that over 90 percent of top American scientists today do not believe in a personal God?

I frankly am stunned that you did not know the facts about Einstein's beliefs concerning religion.

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Mon, 13 May 2013 05:09:44 -0000

Fr, Sean wrote to me:

> I've heard it said that there are three possiblilties of how things came about;
>1. Pure Mathematical Chance
>2. Guided Mathematical chance
>3. Design in nature put forth by a designer involved in everything

Well, as a scientist and an atheist, I can only say that I doubt that too many scientists or atheists would agree with your trichotomy!

Frankly, I am not even sure what “pure mathematical chance” means in a scientific context, and it most certainly is not the scientifically-inclined atheists’ picture of reality. We know that there are natural laws that govern reality, and the results are far from random.

I know that this is hard to convey to those who are utterly ignorant of science. I’m afraid that all that I can say is that the successes of science are so obvious and so spectacular that they make a strong prima facie case that we scientists actually have some idea of what we are talking about. That does not mean that you should just take our word on everything, but it does establish a strong case that you yourself really do have to learn science if you want to have opinions on such subjects that are not just utter nonsense.

Theology and philosophy have failed to make such a prima facie case: the utter failure of philosophers (and theologians of competing religions) to come to substantial agreement on almost anything is very telling and is, I think, the reason that religion has been collapsing in most advanced nations.

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Mon, 13 May 2013 05:13:34 -0000

O. Quine,

I just want to endorse your point: very clearly and very succinctly put.

I assume you have some scientific background?

Now, if only we could get all of the science textbooks in the schools to explain the matter this clearly...

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Mon, 13 May 2013 05:30:58 -0000

Ashley wrote:

>Personally, I think it's [quantum mechanics] a mess, but the makers of this chart probably disagree:

Ashley, as a physicist who is pretty good at quantum mechanics, I think QM is a mess!

Curiously, I just got hold of Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg's new book, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, and Steve says, "My own conclusion (not universally shared) is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws, and that we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is merely a good approximation." (p. 95)

I took quantum field theory from Steve in grad school, and he is known as a nuts-and-bolts, hard-nosed theorist, not the kind to engage in idle speculation, so I am pleased to see he shares my dissatisfaction with QM.

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Mon, 13 May 2013 18:23:42 -0000

Harbey Santiago wrote to me:
>What is the reason why this universe in which we exists, invites us to understand it?

HS, it's a real stretch to say the universe "invites" us to understand it! That is clearly false in any literal sense, and, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mean it metaphorically, it would be too tiresome to try to untangle exactly what your metaphorical meaning is.

HS also wrote:
>Where does this expectation and desire to understand comes from?

That I can answer: humans are monkeys (yes, I know, technically we are descended from monkey-like creatures). Monkeys are inquisitive. Humans are the most inquisitive of all.

Why?

That's our niche -- we fool around with things and, often enough, doing so has a useful result, so that the genes that encourage inquisitiveness have spread in our species (and indeed the order primates) via natural selection.

I hear someone thinking, "Yes, and sometimes inquisitiveness gets your fingers burned!" Indeed, and most humans are not as inquisitive as we physicists. We are off towards the end of the bell curve.

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Mon, 13 May 2013 18:34:03 -0000

By the way, Harbey, you said, "Deep inside there is a "certain order" expected from nature that somehow we have not been able to understand."

It would probably be more accurate to say that we hope for order than that we expect it. There are some good (atheistic) reasons to have that hope: First, we actually have uncovered a lot of order in the natural world already.

Perhaps, more important, it is not clear what it would mean for anything to be completely "disordered." Look into the literature on "randomness": it is rather difficult to figure out what complete randomness could actually be.

And, mathematicians are in the business of studying (logically consistent) possible structures. So, we can have some hope that whatever order there is in the real world might actually be similar to one of the hypothetical structures mathematicians have considered. And, of course, if we scientists discover some structure that mathematicians have not yet discovered, they are happy to get to work on it.

But, still, there is no guarantee that we can understand everything about nature. For example, right now, superstring theory, which once seemed so promising, is beginning to look as if it is just too hard for us to understand.

But maybe we just need a young genius to come along. Who knows?

There are no guarantees in science, but it is a fun game.

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 04:14:03 -0000

Mark Neal wrote to me:

>That leaves us with Guided Chance (progressive creation) and pure Design (special creation).

>Now, I am being 100% honest with you when I say that I really, truly cannot think of any other option. Every other possibility I have ever heard of, has, upon closer inspection, turned out to be just a more elaborate version of one those three that Fr.Sean posted.

Well, Mark, I am just guessing here, but I strongly suspect that you do not have a serious training in natural science.

There are other options: for example, there can be laws of nature that do not allow pure randomness (if that means anything at all, which I doubt) but which do allow quite a bit of apparent randomness.

Any competent scientist knows lots of examples: from classical mechanics to statistical mechanics and on to quantum mechanics.

Now, I realize of course that you will probably say that the laws of nature (and I know of few scientists who would deny that there are laws of nature) are themselves proof of Design.

Well, most top scientists disagree with you on that, and, if you want people who are scientifically literate to take you seriously, you have to actually lay out a case, not just assert the claim.

I know you can point to some philosophers who agree with you on this, but there are also numerous philosophers who disagree. The failure of philosophy to reach any significant consensus on any issue of substance for more than two millennia prevents most scientists from taking philosophers very seriously. (Again, I know you can cite scientists who say that philosophy is important: however, by and large, those same scientists do not take philosophers very seriously when those philosophers talk about real issues concerning nature. When they say philosophy is important, they basically mean important as intellectual decoration, rather like jewelry.)

Sorry to be so blunt, but when you say things such as that you can think of no significant alternative possibilities, my response is that this is because of your lack of education in any area of substance: i.e., natural science. Your imagination is impoverished by your lack of education.

I know many religious believers will say the same about us scientists, due to our (relative) ignorance of theology. Except, again, there is obvious, compelling evidence that we scientists know some very significant things about reality. There is no such prima facie evidence that theologians have significant knowledge about reality: indeed, the radical disagreement among theologians of different religions suggests the opposite.

You also wrote:
>then Reason compels me to abandon pure Chance

I am afraid that what seems to be “Reason” to you seems to have nothing to do with the sort of reasoning that has succeeded in natural science. This is, I think, responsible for much of the “flame wars” on the Web concerning science/religion: you seem to think that what we scientists view as serious reasoning is much the same as your “Reason.”

It isn’t.

Dave
.

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 04:19:16 -0000

Actually, Mark, some of the thermal energy of the sun is converted into (lower-entropy) kinetic energy in the weather system (tornadoes and such).

Of course, total entropy must increase, as it always
does. But that is also true for evolution.

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 04:59:32 -0000

I don’t see that anyone here has laid out why we scientists tend to be
skeptical of religion, so I will try to do so briefly:

1) On the face of it, the various religions make various claims that seem, prima facie, a bit unlikely: after all, nobody would talk about the Virgin Birth, Creation, Resurrection, etc. if such events were a dime a dozen! The fact that these are not common events is the point of these events.

2) Prior to the rise of modern science and critical history, there seemed nonetheless to be good reasons to believe that some of these surprising events really had occurred. E.g., the “Argument from Design” seemed to show that living organisms were designed by some Intelligent Designer, presumably God. The testimony of the Bible (and the handed-down traditions of the Church) seemed to offer serious witnesses for the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc.

3) But science offered a very credible explanation for apparent design in living things that did not require God. And, critical history -- comparative religion, the Higher Criticism of the Bible, etc. -- offered explanations for religious scriptures in general (not just the New Testament) that accounted for the New Testament without the need to assume that the mythical events related therein really occurred.

4) This may not logically prove that the miraculous events related in the Bible did not occur, but with the supposed evidence for those events demolished, we were back to square one: these events are, prima facie, very unlikely, and very unlikely events probably did not occur, unless there is evidence for them.

5) The failure of "God of the gaps" arguments, such as the Argument from Design, has made scientists doubtful of more recent "God of the gaps" arguments, such as the "fine-tuning argument": i.e., arguing from current scientific ignorance seems a losing game given that scientists keep coming up with naturalistic, atheistic explanations for problems that were once mysteries.

6) Philosophy offered various props to religion, but those props have been yanked away as philosophy itself has sunk into disrepute. Old philosophical issues, such as "Does change in an entity always come from external sources, or can change be caused purely internally," just seem silly to modern science. E.g., when an object is moving, is the change in its position caused externally or internally? That seems a bizarre question to a physicist: indeed, whether its position is changing depends on the frame of reference of the observer.

7) The experience both of human history and of natural science shows that subjective feelings, inner intuition, one's interior voice, personal desires, spiritual messages, etc. are very poor avenues to learning about external reality unless confirmed by external objective evidence.. The problem of course is that different people hear different interior voices and spiritual messages, have different intuitions and deepest desires, etc. Skeptical scientists therefore do not take seriously the subjectivist turn in modern religion, often taking it as further evidence that religion is simply fantasies that people find personally comforting.

8) What science has learned about reality, the whole mechanistic, cosmological, quantitative way of thinking of modern science, fits very badly with the teleological, anthropocentric, purpose-driven worldview of religion. We see this in this thread where the religious contributors keep trying to make points that simply seem nonsensical to scientists.

9) Most of us scientists are well-aware that most of our fellow citizens are caught between pre-scientific worldviews and modern scientific ways of thinking. But, most religious believers really do seem to think that what they consider to be "Reason," the way of thinking characteristic of John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, et al., really is more or less similar to scientific reasoning. It just isn't, as earlier exchanges on this thread (and throughout the Web) demonstrate.

________

Note that my description above focuses on what we skeptical scientists actually do think, not on proving that we are right, though I make no secret that I think we are right . I'm just trying to describe, as clearly as I can, why most top scientists are non-religious. I know that Ed Feser, for example, at least partially agrees with some of the points above, even though he and I are on opposite sides of the debate.

Does anyone think I have missed any major aspect of how so many scientists view religion?

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 05:40:26 -0000

Yeah, I guess anthropology falls into the same general category as comparative religion, etc.

By the way, I just added a new point (now number 7), about the current
subjectivist turn that is now so widespread around the Web (e.g., “I
just know that religion works for me.”). It seems to
me that this is now very prominent among non-fundamentalists (both
Catholics and mainline Protestants), and it was an oversight for me not
to mention it.

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 06:52:25 -0000

I actually suspect that consciousness may be a big problem: I find some of the arguments of, e.g., Colin McGinn and Dave Chalmers fairly compelling.

However, it is interesting to note that both McGinn and Chalmers are atheists, the point is that even if we do not understand consciousness (and no competent scientist claims that right now we fully understand consciousness), that does not prove God exists. It merely proves we do not yet know everything, which I suppose no sensible person disputes.

Similarly, I do not know whether superstring theory is true (or even if there is a mathematically consistent quantum version of superstring theory). Again, that merely proves that I and other physicists are not God: it does not prove God exists.

At a more mundane level, no one knows who the next five Superbowl winners will be, but no one takes that fact as proof that God exists. It's an interesting question why no one tries to use the "Superbowl gap" to prove the existence of God, but so many people feel that the (temporary) ignorance of scientists is evidence for God.

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 17:10:20 -0000

O. Quine wrote to me:

>When you think about the problem, always remember that it has to come about gradually along the history of our ancestors, just as it did in your own development from a single cell.

Well, yeah, I suppose it has.

What bothers me is simply the matter of how consciousness can be completely reduced to physics as we now know it: after all, the goal of current science – chem, bio, geology, and astronomy – is to reduce all natural phenomena ultimately to physics. (Some people deny this, but if you look at what contemporary scientists actually try to do, this is it.)

And, for the last four centuries, going back to Galileo, who explicitly wrote about this, physicists have resolutely excluded from consideration the interior phenomena of consciousness: this of course has proven to be a wise decision.

But, that leaves us with a situation similar to Hume's proof that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is": if there are no statements in current physical theories that make any reference at all to interior properties of consciousness, then how, logically speaking, do you get to the first step in your deduction that does mention those interior properties?

As far as I can see that argument is just as airtight as Hume's proof about "is" and "ought." Incidentally, this occurred to me back around 1970: quite a few philosophers and physicists seem to have independently stumbled upon the same argument.

Of course, all this proves is that there will have to be some statement added to the existing laws of physics in order to talk about consciousness, and perhaps that statement will be rather minimal: e.g., in such-and-such an arrangement consciousness just does appear -- voila!

That could be. However, most people who have thought about this, rigid materialists as well as skeptics, tend to think that such a statement must be phrased in functionalist terms (i.e., something about processing information), and it is surprisingly difficult to describe functionalist ideas in purely physicalist terms.

But, maybe this will turn out to be easier than I think: if you know about the "holographic principle," Seth Lloyd's work on the ultimate limits to computation, etc., there do seem to be some hints that physics itself will be reformulated in terms of information. (I'm skeptical of all that, too, but I could well be wrong.)

I had a chance to briefly discuss this with a senior neuroscientist at MIT a year ago, Gerry Schneider, and Prof. Schneider strongly made the point that it is simply premature scientifically to seriously discuss the "hard problem" of consciousness.

So, I'll accept his admonition and merely say that there will have to be some addition to the laws of physics, even if a minimal one, because of the Humean logical argument. Beyond that, I'll wait and see.

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 17:30:04 -0000

Mark Neal wrote to me:

> On a side note, what does it mean when a scientist says that "there CAN be laws of nature" that do such-and-such? Does that mean they're just making it up as they go along?

Well, I thought it was pretty clear in context that I was saying there "can" be such laws because there actually are such laws! "Is" implies "can," you know.

Markl also wrote:
>Can't you just be honest and say "we atheists?"

No, I actually did mean what I said: I have talked to numerous people well-trained in science (not just Ph.D.s in science -- I have in mind also a guy with a doctorate in pharmacy) who just shake their heads at the kinds of "reasoning" employed in philosophy, theology, modern literary studies, etc. and wonder why on earth the same word, "reasoning," is used to apply to that sort of "reasoning" and to scientific reasoning.

It would be as if we used the same word to apply to both "astrology" and "astronomy."

Mark also wrote:
>Albert Einstein knew that he was looking at the work of a Great Artist.

That's just not true, as you can find out with a modest amount of googling: Einstein made emphatically clear that he did not believe in any god who had purposes, intentions, etc. He simply used the word "God" in a metaphorical sense, as many atheists do.

Mark repeated:
>The order in the universe can be explained by:
>(1) Chance (naturalism)
>(2) Design (special creation), or
>(3) Both (progressive creation)
>All other alternatives are merely variations on one of these three. Evolution is a version of #1. In real science, nature cannot produce order from disorder by itself.

And, I will repeat that you are just again revealing your ignorance of science here and your inability to reason as scientists reason.

As others have tried to explain to you, scientists in technical works do not generally use the ambiguous word "disorder" but rather the technical term "entropy": "entropy" means very specifically the logarithm of the number of microscopic states that correspond to a given macroscopic specification of the system. Sometimes, that more or less corresponds to what ordinary people mean by "disorder": very, very often, it does not.

If you carefully translate your statements above into technical language, they just fall apart. The superficial plausibility to your ideas is due to your using ambivalent non-technical language and sliding between different meanings of those non-technical words.

This would be avoided if you would actually learn the details of the science and speak precisely.

Bit, I cannot make you do that.

All I and other scientists can do is honestly say that if anyone wishes to learn the relevant science they will discover that you are confused (and I do mean "scientists," not "atheists," here -- no competent scientist disagrees with what I am saying about "disorder" vs. "entropy" -- this is textbook Stat Mech 101).

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 17:34:23 -0000

Mark Neal wrote:
> high energy = high entropy.

Mark, that is simply false.

You should not trust Wikipedia on technical subjects: it has been hacked even in my own specialty field of elementary-particle physics.

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 17:47:27 -0000

Mark Neal wrote to me:
>Look, energy comes in, entropy goes up. Not down. Ever.
>The Sun's energy is converted into higher-entropy kinetic energy when the wind blows. Always. Not lower.

Mark, all I can say is that if you ever did take a thermo/stat mech course, the professor did you a disservice if he passed you!

You are wildly, crazily wrong about wind: ordered kinetic energy has essentially zero entropy: that is the whole point of heat engines, Carnot cycles, and all the rest of it.

I know you have no intention of actually learning the relevant physics, but if anyone else does, I recommend Reif's Thermal and Statistical Physics: carefully work your way through Reif and actually understand it, and you can avoid Mark's profound confusion.

You are very wonderfully illustrating the point I keep returning to: what guys like you mean by "Reason" vs. the reasoning employed by actual scientists are as different as astrology and astronomy.

A point you may wish to respond to: If you are right about entropy, evolution, etc. wouldn't all competent scientists recognize that evolution violates the Second Law? Shouldn't there be millions of physicists, chemists, etc. loudly shouting out that evolution is obvious nonsense because it violates the Second Law?

Seriously, why do you think that is not happening?

Quine and I are trying to explain to you that it is because when physicists and chemists refer to the Second Law, we mean something very different than what you think.

Can you see that this explains why physicists and chemists do not denounce evolution as an obvious violation of the Second Law?

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 18:00:42 -0000

stanz2reason quoted:
>Pope Benedict XVI, offered this simple but penetrating argument for God’s existence: the universal intelligibility of nature, which is the presupposition of all science, can only be explained through recourse to an infinite and creative mind...

I'm a scientist, and I do not presuppose the "universal intelligibility of nature" at all. I merely hope that the particular problem I am currently working on may prove to be intelligible to me. Sometimes it is, sometimes not.

There is a world of difference between "presuppose" and "hope."

You guys keep wanting to assume that we scientists have just as dogmatic of presuppositions as you True Believers™ do.

But we don't.

Dave

NOTE ADDED: It appears that I tied this to the wrong post: I.e., stanz2reason seems to agree with me and I am disagreeing with a post further upthread. Sorry for my carelessness stanz2reason, and everyone else.

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:18:27 -0000

Mark Neal wrote to me:

>The Wikipedia article I referenced was correct on the relationship between entropy and enthalpy. This is part of my own specialty field of nuclear power plant operations.

Hoo, boy! Please tell us the name of the plant at which you work – this is really dangerous. They need to be informed of your lack of technological knowledge immediately and you need to be pulled off the job.

I will try googling you to find out the information, but it would be simpler if you would just post it here.

I’m not kidding.

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:35:11 -0000

Okay folks, we seem to have found a bona fide anti-evolutionist, Second-Law-of thermodynamics-fallacy Creationist on our hands, and I had thought this blog had a higher than normal standard of commenters. (sigh)

Dave wrote:

> > "If you are right about entropy, evolution, etc. wouldn't all competent scientists recognize that evolution violates the Second Law?"

Mark Neal replied:
> All COMPETENT scientists do!!! But of course, our definitions of "competent" are as different as our definitions of "reason." Methinks that's never gonna change....

Mark, I trust you agree that the majority of chemists and physicists are not denouncing evolution. So, you are saying that the vast majority of chemists and physicists are incompetent.

The prosecution rests.

Remember, folks, this guy claims to be involved with nuclear-power plants!

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:41:33 -0000

Oops, sorry, the perils of deeply nested threads!

Dave

Re: Einstein and God

physicistdave — Wed, 15 May 2013 00:43:25 -0000

O. Quine wrote to me:
>Now, maybe you need to take that back to fish (or even worms) to feel confident...

On the contrary, I am much less confident about fish and worms than I am about humans. I’m not sure whether or not fish are conscious, and I certainly do not know whether or not worms are conscious!

As far as I can tell, no one does. Indeed, there seems to be no consensus at all on fish and worms even among those who share your own view.

At least, most of us do agree that other humans are conscious (though I have a sneaking suspicion that there are indeed some "zombies" out there, to use the technical term of art!).

O. Quine also wrote:
>Also, the big mystery is really about your own attempt to understand your own consciousness..

Exactly. That is the mystery I was talking about. See, we agree.

O. Quine also wrote:
>If you did not have to solve your own consciousness, as in the fictional view of a (non-human) anthropologist from Mars looking at humans that Oliver Sacks has used, you would only have to come up with a explanation of what humans say and do, such saying and doing that is in any way observable.

But, if you did that, you would be ignoring an obvious element of reality: i.e. the interior facts of consciousness.

It seems to me that all you are saying is that if we agree to ignore and not to talk about the interior properties of consciousness, then physics explains everything else, including our externally observable behavior.

Maybe it does.

But, personally, I and, it seems, most human beings do not wish to ignore our interior consciousness -- indeed, it is awfully important to most of us, probably the most important thing in the world, and so we are curious about it.

Telling us we should not be curious about it does not make it go away.

You tell all of us we should just stop insisting on taking the interior view and settle for whatever can be learned from the exterior, behaviorist, functionalist view. We reply, no thanks: we are interested in that interior view and want to know everything we can about it. And, based on the obsession that so many of our fellow citizens seem to have with every tiny aspect of their subjective life (ever tried to watch an entire episode of the old Oprah show or looked at the best-selling self-pity/self-indulgence books in the bookstores?), I am pretty sure that when I say “we,” I am referring to the vast majority of our fellow citizens.

If you do not want to understand how and why you have that interior perspective (I am assuming you are not a so-called “zombie” and that you do have that interior perspective), that is up to you, but it is rather odd for you to try to convince the rest of us that we should not be curious about it ourselves.

As far as I can tell, what you are advocating is a form of epiphenomenalism in which physics is self-sufficient and consciousness just goes along for the ride. Maybe that is true -- I don't know. But, even so, I would like to know in what physical situations there is in fact a consciousness that does go along for the ride. Fish? Worms? Amoebae?

Simply knowing in exactly which situations consciousness actually does “supervene” on physical facts would be additional knowledge about the natural world that we do not now possess, additional, that is, to currently known physics.

That is all I am saying. You may think that such additional information about when and how consciousness “supervenes” on physical facts is trivial or uninteresting. Perhaps. But I would like to know about it, and it is more than can be produced by existing physics.

Personally, I do very much doubt that the epiphenomenalistic perspective that you seem to adhere to is true. As you know, there have been multiple telling criticisms of epiphenomenalism over the centuries. But, more than that, when I look at the history of science, solutions to outstanding problems rarely seem to come that cheaply.

But who knows? Maybe your epiphenomenalistic perspective is right. But, if so, I would still like that additional information on when and where consciousness does happen to “supervene” on physical reality. That’s all I was saying.

Dave

Re: Atheism, Evidence, and the “God-of-the-Gaps”

physicistdave — Wed, 15 May 2013 00:58:56 -0000

David La May wrote:

> Logic. Cause and effect. The Cause is greater than the effect. The laws of physics had to come from a mind greater, certainly, than any complexity which we can observe right now.

Ummmm, David, young chap, you are aware I trust that what you have labeled “logic” is what is usually labeled “metaphysics,” in your case unsubstantiated and very iffy metaphysical assertions?

“Logic” usually denotes things such as modus ponens, excluded middle, syllogisms, etc.

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Re: Atheism, Evidence, and the “God-of-the-Gaps”

physicistdave — Wed, 15 May 2013 01:06:10 -0000

Jim,

If you have had any significant interaction with atheists, you should know that many (nearly all, in my experience) use “atheism” to refer not to a positive belief that God does not exist but merely to a lack of belief that any god(s) exists.

So, no, many atheists (myself included) hold no belief one way or the other about the existence of god(s). I admit that I think it a bit unlikely that a god exists, but to say I believe that none exists would be too strong of a statement.

Perhaps you would prefer to refer to most atheists as “agnostics,” but the coiner of the term “agnostic” specified some conditions that fail to apply to many of us.

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Re: Atheism, Evidence, and the “God-of-the-Gaps”

physicistdave — Wed, 15 May 2013 01:24:03 -0000

Jim,

An additional point of information: In my experience, most of the real passion that Western atheists have against beliefs in God is directed against Christianity in particular and, more broadly, organized religions in general (Islam, Hinduism, etc.).

There are fairly obvious reasons for this: many Westerners have had encounters with Christianity in which they found something to be really annoying. Furthermore, Christianity (and other organized religions in other societies) has real social power that can be used to discriminate against or persecute non-believers. And, Christianity makes very forceful and detailed claims that strike most non-Christians, not only atheists, as quite bizarre.

A mere philosophical belief in a deity that is not part of any religion, on the other hand, has very little power and is unlikely to offend many people. And, people who have such a belief but are part of no religious movement have usually not tied their belief in God to more detailed claims that are patently absurd or offensive.

Dave