So, your point is... ? — 3017amen

My point is the arguments for God's existence do not have the power to convince anyone God exists - only Theists accept them. Why bother?

if I can't prove a proposition in a given system x, that proposition can't belong to that system. — TheMadFool

That's not true.Goldbach's Conjecture is not "semantically empty": all the terms and relations are well defined (prime number, even number, sum). If true and unprovable, it is because the formal system of peano arithmetic is incomplete. That's what Godel's incompleteness theorem is all about: incompleteness = there are unprovable true statements in the formal system.

I can form the grammatically correct sentence "the uncertainty principle is true" with words that occur in theism in statements like " it is true there's no uncertainty regarding god's existence", "god commands us to live by the moral principles he laid out". The uncertainty principle is a fact in quantum physics, a totally different system to theism and insofar as theism is concerned, the sentence "the uncertainty principle is true" is meaningless. — TheMadFool

Godel's Incompleteness theorem is about formal mathematical systems. It has no metaphysical implications. Similary, the uncertainty principle of Quantum Mechanics has no relation to the uncertainty various metaphysical claims.

The general problem is that they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions.
— Relativist

Wrong. Synthetic a priori judgements/assumptions are used all the time to test theories in physics. — 3017amen

I don't understand your point. If you're just saying that it's reasonable to make metaphysical assumptions, that may be - but then it's equally fine to deny those assumptions. Consequently, the arguments are only deemed sound by those who already believe in God. There is no argument that proves God based solely on non-controversial premises.

What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? — DoppyTheElv

The general problem is that they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions. Theists often don't see that these are questionable because the argument "proves" what they already "know" to be true.

Fair point, but this leads to the question of what constitutes reasonable justification? Most beliefs are not provable by deduction - we make inductive inferences all the time. You can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but it's reasonable to believe it will. Science advances by abductive reasoning, not deduction. To deny justifications other than deduction leads to extreme philosophical skepticism, which is paralyzing.

But it demonstrates that conceptually, propositions can be true but unprovable.

Isn't true but unprovable a contradiction? — TheMadFool

No. Consider Goldbach's conjecture(GC):Every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.

GC may be true even if it cannot be proven true. If true, and unprovable, it is unknowable.

I think the reaction against being "politically correct" is sometimes merely a half-assed way of justifying loutishness. — Ciceronianus the White

That's often true, although sometimes it refers to comments that were truly intended innocently. e.g. my wife (a special ed teacher, not of the intellectually challenged, but still worked in those circles) jumped on me a couple years ago for referring to a student as "retarded".

As background, I volunteered at the "Houston Center for the Retarded" when I was in high school in the early 1970s - that's the last time I had personal contact with the intellectually challenged. But these days, "retarded" has become a politically incorrect term. I understand why, and have no problem with that - but I simply didn't know. I suggest that making such an error should be considered a faux pas the first time (or two). It becomes loutish when one refuses to accept that the term is inappropriate and proceeds to use such terms regularly.

9 out of 10 Native Americans are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, and in fact many express admiration for it,

88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness.
— NOS4A2


Let's assume that's true. Do you think the name should not be changed? If so, why do you want the name to remain "Redskins"? If you think it should be changed, what is your complaint? If you don't care, why make an issue of it? — Ciceronianus the White

I once read a book about the Amos n' Andy radio show. In its earliest days, the white actors who portrayed (racially stereotypical) black characters were popular and respected among the black community. The acceptance of status quo is pretty common, but that doesn't mean the status quo should be perpetuated.

Washington Redskins News

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters during Monday's daily press briefing that President Trump "believes that the Native American community would be very angry" about Washington's NFL team changing its name source

Meanwhile, back in the world of sane people:, the Navajo Nation put out a statement on the retirement of the Redskins name:

“July 13, 2020 is now a historic day for all Indigenous peoples around the world as the NFL Washington-based team officially announced the retirement of the racist and disparaging “Redskins” team name and logo,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez wrote. “This change did not come about willingly by the team’s owners, but by the mounting pressure and advocacy of Indigenous peoples such as Amanda Blackhorse, and many other warriors who fought long and hard for this change.”
source

I had to double check the first article to see if it was real. It's the sort of thing I expect to see in The Onion.

If you think Trump corrected a miscarriage of justice in pardoning Stone, that's going to need some support.

This article makes a pretty good case for corruption: Roger Stone's Commutation is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

I see nothing wrong with the article save for the implication that speaking to Assange and Wikileaks and having interest in the emails (knowledge of which was already public) was somehow a bad thing. It’s not.

Stone maintains that he wasn’t prosecuted because he was covering for the president, but because he refused to lie about the president. — NOS4A2

The facts belie what Stone says. Here's some quotes from the article that you agree is factual:

Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify.

...Stone did, indeed, refuse to provide testimony adverse to Trump. And while his precise relationship to WikiLeaks and Assange was never fully explained, he stood trial for lies to Congress denying his efforts to contact WikiLeaks, and for intimidating another witness who could have contradicted those lies. As the judge in Stone’s case put it: “He was prosecuted for covering up for the President."

It wasn't a refusal to tell lies that got Stone in trouble, it was a failure to admit truths that would make the President look bad, and conceivably could result in a case of perjury against Trump. Further, it appears Trump was dangling a pardon to encourage Stone to stay mum. This seems like pure corruption to me, but surely you must at least recognize how bad this looks.

I'd love for you to fact check this article:
Roger Stone's Commutation is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

It looks pretty solid to me, but my judgment may be impaired by bias. Help me be more objective by identifying the falsehoods in the story.

Setting aside your partisan viewpoint on the events, every innocent person who has ever been arrested has been treated unfairly. That does not give them the right to lie under oath. In fact, lying under oath will always look suspicious, so it's a bad idea.

Because he was treated unjustly and wasn’t given a fair trial. — NOS4A2

Why is it unjust to charge him with perjury, when he lied under oath?

You’re spouting the Pelosi line that the Mueller investigation was a legit investigation. The Steele dossier was payed for by the Clinton campaign and sourced from Russian intelligence, leading to unwarranted spying, investigations and a misinformed western populace, all for the purpose of winning an election—Russian collusion. Any indictments?

Stone was raided by a SWAT team with CNN in tow, and for what — NOS4A2

You're jumping to conclusions about my motivation. I'm focusing on the fact that Stone committed crimes and was convicted. Any possible problem with the initiation of the investigation is irrelevant. Stone committed perjury and witness intimidation. A jury found him guilty. We're supposed to have rule of law. My "why" was intended to solicit an answer that would somehow relate to why he deserved preferential treatment. What makes it OK to commit these crimes? Can everyone expect the same treatment?

Assertion will get you nowhere. — Metaphysician Undercover

What an odd thing to say, considering that you asserted physicists have been impaired by their ignorance of metaphysics, and your examples were a fail.

The problem is, that from the perspective of classical metaphysics, the "insight" of special relativity is not an advancement at all, it's a step backward, a rejection of discipline. Special relativity assigns ambiguity to the point in time designated as "now". But precise measurement of time requires precise determinations of the points "now", which mark the beginning an ending of the measured duration. Without such precision we have uncertainty. Hence the uncertainty principle, emerges as the result of the ambiguity which special relativity assigns to the point in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is a novel view of an "uncertainty principle" That's interesting that you think that time can't be measured precisely. You're wrong, but it's interesting that you believe it.

Out of idle curiosity, what exactly is your objection to quantum physics?
— fishfry

If you're interested, just go back and read the posts I made in this thread. They aren't large, and there isn't a lot. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fishfry - don't waste your time.

OK, then let's call it metaphysics, if you're ok with that. Now, are you willing to recognize that a metaphysician, trained in the principles of metaphysics is most likely a lot more capable of doing this work (metaphysics), than is a physicist, who is trained in the principles of physics, and not in metaphysics? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes and no. Metaphysicians are better equipped for conceptual analysis, including developing general metaphysical frameworks, but they would be abysmal at the "metaphysics" that is part of the core work of theoretical physicists - the thinking outside the box. As I brought up earlier, no metaphysician would have thought up the Page-Wooter mechanism, had the insight about time that we gained from special relativity, predicted quantum uncertainty, nor proposed the nature of quantum fields as (possibly) fundamental. Metaphysicians can reflect on these advances, and perhaps propose a metaphysical framework (like ontic structural realism), but they won't actually be contributing to the advance of physics - even if you choose to label this "metaphysics".

I did, in my last post, it was your example of the standard model of particle physics. It incorporates uncertainty as a fundamental principle of quantum physics; obviously bad metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover

But you're wrong, so I infer that you have no actual cases in which an ignorance of metaphysics impaired physicists.

The uncertainty principle is a feature of all quantum field theory, and therefore the standard model as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

But even if you denied quantum uncertainty, you can't deny the existence of these particles. Furthermore, quantum uncertainty has been verified.

Of course it's been verified experimentally, when you are uncertain of something it's easy to demonstrate this. But that doesn't mean that the uncertainty is not derived from bad metaphysics.

Is this a joke? If not, then it just indicates you don't know what you're taking about.

He’s still guilty and still a felon the last time I checked. Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller probe were a farce. They spied on a political campaign and ruined the lives of people who should not have been investigated, Stone included. — NOS4A2

You're spouting the Trump line about the Mueller investigation being a farce. Even if there were problems with the FISA applications, the investigation was conducted in a legal manner - with legally obtained subpoenas that obligated Stone to tell the truth. He didn't. Why?

The point is to demonstrate that you are wrong in your conclusion. Physicists do go beyond the work of physics, into the field of metaphysics. And, they aren't trained in metaphysics, as you accept. So why not accept as well, that their metaphysics is very often deficient, faulty in comparison with classical metaphysics, because they are not educated in some of the fundamental principles of metaphysics? And your conclusion "this does not seem to have handicapped them" is demonstrably false. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you're going to label as "metaphysics" any work physicists do that is outside the box of established physics, feel free - but it doesn't change anything. I'd be more inclined to just call the entire venture "natural philosphy", as was the norm prior to the 19th century. Categorizing the work of physicists as partially science and partially philosophy just seems a forced fit into semantic categories. It's harmless, but doesn't serve to improve the process.

You say it's "demonstrably false" that their ignorance of metaphysics has handicapped physicists. Please provide one or two good examples.

The standard model is extremely deficient. It accepts uncertainty (the uncertainty principle), as inherent within the thing being modeled. What kind of a model is that? We're modeling something, but fundamental aspects of the thing being modeled cannot be modeled using our metaphysical principles, so we'll just incorporate "uncertainty" into the model. The problem here is that the metaphysics of time being employed in the standard model is very deficient in comparison with the classical metaphysics of time, and this produces an extremely deficient model, full of uncertainty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sounds like you don't understand what I'm talking about. I'm referrring to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which consists of things like quarks, leptons, bosons. This model was proposed in the 1960s to explain the large number of (supposed) elementary particles that were being generated and identified in particle collisions. The model proposed that those observed particles were actually composed of these more elementary components. It was derived mathematically, but over the decades was verified experimentally.

The uncertainty principle isn't directly related to this, so perhaps you were mistaken. Nevertheless the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics has also been verified experimentally - so I'm sorry, but it's nonsensical to dismiss its reality based on some metaphysical principles. Physics needs to come first, and the metaphysics needs to be consistent with it. Not the other way around. As I said earlier, physics has proven the natural world is weird at the fundamental level, a fact that would never be exposed by pure philosophical reflection.

And what do physicists mean when they say something like "we can just change the math on this one a little". They literally say stuff like this all the time!! If the math merely reflects the quantities measured, it would seem ALL of physics is about experimentation. So where does that leave theoretical physics? I think in philosophy, but I am willing to be corrected — Gregory

You can call it philosophy if you like, but understand it's the sort of philosophy that can only be done by physicists. Personally - I don't see any value in categorizing the work of physicists into the separate categories of physics and metaphysics.

My impression is that one could say physicists engage in metaphysics when they develop concepts (like the curvature of space and interpretations of quantum mechanics). — Relativist


Would you agree, that when Einstein went beyond the accepted principles of physics of his day, he was practicing metaphysics rather than physics? Since he wasn't following the conventional rules of physics, we cannot say he was doing physics. If you agree, then why would you think that it's physics rather than metaphysics which gives us insight into the nature of time? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I do not agree that Einstein went beyond the accepted principles of physics of his day. He was addressing some outstanding problems in the physics of the day.

As I said previously, one can classify some of the work of physicists as "metaphysics", but what's the point? Physicists aren't typically trained in the field of metaphysics, they're trained in physics, and this does not seem to have handicapped them. Theoretical physics entails developing new frameworks - which could be labelled metaphysics. For example, when the standard model of particle physics was proposed, one could have called this an exercise in metaphysics (it proposed a suite of particles that constitute the fundamental building blocks of material reality), but it's not the sort of metaphysics a philosopher could do because it depended on knowledge of physics.

He started yesterday.

Physicists can construct new theories that bring about paradigm shifts but they have to do so under the bias of an already preconceived ontology which may or may not be justified. Take general relativity in which it's popular to envision a substantival real existent spacetime which is curved when in reality physicists should be rather dumbfounded as most analysis i've seen into general relativity make the question of whether there is or isn't a real existent spacetime being curved rather unclear. Perhaps physics enjoys throwing numerous metaphysical concepts at the wall until one sticks experimentally. — substantivalism

This is the nature of scientific revolutions. Without science investigation, metaphysicians would be spinning their wheels and getting nowhere.

It's unquestionably always the case that proper time is invariant while coordinate time is not because it's an outside analysis done onto other inertial frames of reference. — substantivalism

What is "proper time"?

I'm highly skeptical of physical theories which stress such absolute features as fundamental to time but also to physicists who believe they can attain change/time from unchanging/timeless entities.

This paper, The Problem with the Problem of Time, similarly argues that something more is needed - the passage of time is not an illusion. Nevertheless, the Page-Wooters effect seems real. This suggests something is missing from our theories. My question is: who is more likely to find a solution, a philosopher or a physicist? I think the latter.

Regarding the fundamentals of time, I also question whether metaphysicians are equipped to answer it. Physicists are exploring it (see Time: An Emergent Property of Matter).

Unlike metaphysicians, physicists will propose solutions that are consistent with theory, and positioned to develop experiments that can validate their hypotheses.

Special relativity and Page-Wooters clearly show that time is weirder than anyone would have thought. Weirdness like this is not going to be uncovered without new Physics. If Physics can't do it, there's no hope for Metaphysicians.

I’ve explained my views on Stone before. I think the investigation and prosecution were political and unjust. — NOS4A2

Stone was charged with, and found guilty of, lying to Congress and witness tampering. Even if the investigation was inappropriate, that does not excuse Stone's illegal acts.

It's hard to believe that Stone wasn't hiding something, and that's why he lied. We'll never know what it was because he got away with it. No one, other than a friend of the President, could get away with such behavior. Trump does not respect the rule of law.

I have a prediction. If Trump is defeated in November, then sometime before Biden takes office, Trump will pardon everyone, including himself, preemptively, claiming this will put an end to the "witch hunt" once and for all.

Isn't this a metaphysical analysis which is exposing these deficiencies? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. It was the implication of theory. Page and Wooters considered the implications of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Subsequently, the Page-Wooter's effect was experimentally verified

Seems you don't know the difference between physics and metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Feel free to enlighten me. My impression is that one could say physicists engage in metaphysics when they develop concepts (like the curvature of space and interpretations of quantum mechanics). If you'd like to divide the work of physicists this way, I have no objection, and I think philosophical reflection is important. My main issue is that the relevant paradigm shifts only occur because of new physics, not because of this philosophical reflection. My initial comment in this thread was: "I don't think metaphysical analysis can provide definitive answers about time. On the other hand, physics may develop insight into its nature"

And I haven't seen any reason to think this isn't true. That doesn't mean philosophical reflection can't be of use, but given the weird things we've learned about time through leading-edge physics, it seems unlikely philosophical reflection alone can solve this.

That physics has identified a "problem of time" demonstrates that the principle they apply, are deficient. The "things" that you say physics has shown about time are the things which lead to the "problem of time", which demonstrates that despite your claim, these "things" are not truths. They are simply useful principles which are limited in their application, demonstrating their deficiencies. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree the "problem of time" implies deficiencies in our concept of time, but my point is that metaphysical analysis would never expose the deficiency.

We could begin with the way that we apprehend the substantial difference between past and future. The past consists of events which have actually occurred, and the future consists of events which are possible, as indicated by human behavior. This means that the present as what divides future from past, is ontologically significant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, right - no one noticed a distinction between past, present, and future before some metaphysicians pointed it out.

Metaphysics consists of conceptual analysis, and in that regard it can help identify implications of concepts, but the paradigm shifting breakthroughs regarding our understanding of time has been a result of advances in physics - not metaphysics.

I think this is actually the opposite of reality. Analysis of the problems which physics encounters with its representations of time, juxtaposed with the firmly established metaphysical conceptions of causation, is what develops insight into the nature of time. Physicists do not value metaphysical conceptions, metaphysicians do. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm open to considering the value of metaphysical analysis in this regard, but it was physics - not metaphysics- that showed time is not absolute, that it is relative to a reference frame (i.e. special relativity). It is physics that showed space and time are coupled, and identified the "problem of time". And it's physicists who are exploring what may be the fundamental basis of time.

What specific insights have metaphysicians provided regarding time?

There is no fact that Trump doesn’t read intelligence reports. It is fake news because the story is, according to the administration, false. — NOS4A2

And if the administration says so, it must be true. ROFL! It's pretty ludicrous to think Schiff's staff would have been given the information, but that it would have been omitted from the report Trump receives.

But there is a way to spin it so it is negative for Trump. Hence the leaker, the Democrats, the fake news singing the same songs in unison. They want hearings on unverified information, the leaks of which may have compromised ongoing intel and operations and even lives. — NOS4A2

It IS negative for Trump. It highlights the fact that he doesn't read the written intelligence reports he's given. We knew this previously only because of leaks from his staff, but it had not been admitted by the administration. It also shows he's an idiot for his knee-jerk "fake news" response when he first heard about it. This is absolutely not fake news.

It's interesting that you make the most positive possible assumptions about this. We really don't know how credible the intelligence was, but we do know it was credible enough to include in his briefing. You parrot the administration (talking about singing in unison!) stressing that it's "unverified" - which is the general nature of intelligence.

Why was it leaked? Was it strictly for partisan purposes, or was it because someone had a genuine concern? I acknowledge it could be either, or it could be both. Why can't you?

It wasn’t raised to his attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it. — NOS4A2

If you truly believe the intel was not credible, why did you blast Schiff?

The publicly available information on this intelligence does not support your view that it wasn't "credible". It was unproved, but that doesn't imply it shouldn't be a cause of of concern. - it was not presented as a questionable, unsupported rumor. It was not a "hoax" as Trump initially alleged, and it WAS in the written briefing material he received. A competent President would have known it was not a hoax - he had the information, but failed to read it.

There's no way to spin this in way that is positive for Trump.

I agree with everything you said.

Is this exactly the case? I thought it was a bit more complicated than that, — jgill

Yes it's the case, and yes, it's more complicated than that. It's not mysticism, it's confirmed physics.

if intelligent creatures are conducting galactic seeding operations of the kind I described here, it's more likely that they intend to create intellgent life like themselves than not. — TheMadFool

It would take a lot more than radio waves to direct evolution toward the development of intelligence.

I don't think metaphysical analysis can provide definitive answers about time. On the other hand, physics may develop insight into its nature.

The Page-Wooters mechaism is a fascinating phenomonen. It suggests time is a local phenomenon associated with quantum entanglement. An elapse of time is experienced by observers within a quantum system, but external observers to not observe the elapse of time within the system:

In 1983 theorists Don Page and William Wootters suggested that quantum entanglement might provide a solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt “problem of time”. When quantum objects are entangled, measuring the properties of one changes those of the other. Mathematically, they showed that a clock entangled with the rest of the universe would appear to tick when viewed by an observer within that universe. But if a hypothetical observer existed outside the universe, when they looked in, everything would appear stationary. -source

I'm aware of no metaphysical analysis that would have predicted this, nor that even attempts to account for it. Hence, I suggest metaphysics is futile for understanding it.

According to “multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing”, Schiff was briefed in February, but for some reason took no action.

Top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan, but he took no action in response to the briefing, multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing told The Federalist. The intelligence was briefed to Schiff’s staff during a congressional delegation, or CODEL, trip to Afghanistan in February.


https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/02/schiff-learned-of-russian-bounty-intelligence-in-february-withheld-information-from-congress-and-took-no-action

So perhaps an investigation is indeed in order. I suppose we’ll see. — NOS4A2

Suppose Schiff was derelict. Does this somehow imply Trump was not?

The bounty issue was conveyed to Trump in his written intelligence briefings - which his senior staff also receive. Trump is derelict on an ongoing basis for failing to read these, but even if we set that aside because everyone knows he doesn't read them - why wasn't this verbally raised to his attention by his staff? Trump is responsible for the activities, and inactivities, of his staff. Their incompetence is his problem - he appointed them. Compound this with the fact that Trump's initial reaction was that it was a MSM hoax, which was clearly wrong.

I couldn't care less if Schiff gets investigated. It has zero bearing on Trump's dereliction of duty.

IMO, the biggest problem with the KCA is the equivocation on "begins to exist".

Premise one (Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence) is justified by our intuitions that observe things beginning to exist from a prior state of affairs in which the thing did not exist.

Premise two (The universe began to exist) is justified by the inference that the past is finite, so spacetime had a beginning. However, this is not consistent with the justification for premise 1 - because there is no prior time at which spacetime didn't exist. In fact, a finite past just entails an initial state for the universe (more properly: for material reality), one that cannot have been "created" because there is no prior state at which it didn't exist.

Space colonization could be rendered possible without having to build spaceships, developing life-support systems, etc. All we would need to seed the galaxy would be knowledge of what kind of electromagnetic radiation and what kind of frequencies/wavelengths would kickstart basic life-originating chemical processes on habitable planets. — TheMadFool

Even if you could cause life to appear on exoplanets, there's no reason to think intelligent life would develop. That is, unless you're a theist and believe in a telos.

I vote "none of the above" because you are reifying an abstraction. Consciousness isn't a thing that is housed, nor is it an illusion. It's a process of moving from one intentional state to the next.