Consider the sentence "Animals eat in order to survive". How is this different from saying "survival tends to follow eating"? — sime
a given situation, to predict a person's motives is to predict their behaviour. — sime
Teleology should therefore be considered true, or at least meaningless. — sime
As the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, ultimate meta-law, etc., philosophically, God is the-end-of-the-line of explanation. To be the-end-of-the-line, God needs to be self-explaining. — Dfpolis
So, for God to do any possible act, He must know all reality -- including us. — Dfpolis
That is a very peculiar claim, given that we can only know that there is no evidence for x is to know that there is no x. — Dfpolis
Before we understood finger prints and DNA, a crime scene might be rife with evidence identifying the culprit, but investigators were unaware of it. Evidence is only evidence for those able to recognize and use it. So, if you know of no evidence for x, and do not know, independently, that there is no x, the most you can only claim rationally, "I see no reason for believing in x." Thus, using the non-recognition of evidence to categorical deny x is an argumentum in cirulares. — Dfpolis
In the present case, the continuing existence of any and all reality is definitive evidence for the existence of God for those able to see its implications. — Dfpolis
What is here and now cannot actualize its potential existence at another space-time point, because it is here, not there. Thus, on-going existence requires a concurrent, on-going source of actualization for its explanation. This source is either explained by another or is self-explaining -- the end of the line of explanation. If it is explained by another, then, to avoid an infinite regress, we must have a self-explaining end of the line. This has been explicitly known for two and a half millennia -- since Aristotle formulated the unmoved mover argument in his — Dfpolis
The concept of a telos (end) is that of the reason a process is undertaken. This could be a final state, or it could be for someting that occurs before the final state, with the final state occurring only incidentally. Thus, spiders spin webs to catch prey, not to have the broken by random events. — Dfpolis
Still, knowing creation's final physical state says nothing of what will become of its intentional aspects. I have shown in another thread that physics has nothing to say about intentionality. — Dfpolis
This makes the assumption that intermediate states are unintended. Do you have an argument for this? — Dfpolis
It seems clear to me, from reflecting on the art of story telling, that as much thought and intentionality can be put into the early and intermediate chapters and acts as into the climax. In fact, when I write, I am more interested in the psychology and dynamics that set the characters on a track than I am in where that track leads them. As a result, I have many unfinished stories.
An even more telling example is the work of a machine designer. She may well know that, eventually, her machine will on the scrap heap, but that is not her purpose in designing it. Her purpose revolves around what the machine can do between its production and its decommissioning.
Thus, there is no reason to think the purpose (telos) of the cosmos is its physical heat death. — Dfpolis
I agree, texts should be read as a whole. Still, the reasoning behind a holistic movement of thought is found in individual sentences. So, we need to examine its parts. — Dfpolis
I think that this assumes something you are the verge of rejecting -- namely, the existence of an optimal state. — Dfpolis
(This is the problem with all forms of utilitarianism -- the assumption that there exists a well-defined utility function that can be optimized.) — Dfpolis
So, in order to make sense of this claim, there must exist an single optimum. What, precisely, is being optimized? And, how are the required trade-offs done? — Dfpolis
How did you reach this conclusion?
I conclude that there are sound proofs by working though their data and logic, answering all the objections I read as well as my own. — Dfpolis
This is an ad hominem. You have presented no rational objection to any specific proof, let alone a methodological argument that would rule out any possible proof. You have only made the faith claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God. — Dfpolis
To be skeptical is to require adequate reasons for believing a proposition true. To be open is to require adequate reasons for believing a proposition false. So, to any fair minded person, they are one and the same mental habit -- what is called a scientific mindset. Such a mindset requires us to reject a priori commitments such as your faith claim that there is no God. — Dfpolis
It has been proven for two and a half millennia. What rational objection do you have to Aristotle's unmoved mover argument? What objection do you have for the meta-law argument in my evolution paper? — Dfpolis
The analogy is:
Mass of humans : Mass of supporting cosmos :: Mass of capstone : Mass of the supporting pyramid. — Dfpolis
There are two errors here: (1) there is no claim that we are the sole point of creation and (2) there is no reason to think that God needs to skimp on existence to effect His ends. — Dfpolis
Many see the elegance of a few simple laws causing a singularity to blossom into the complex beauty of the cosmos. — Dfpolis
You miss the point: mass ratios are not an argument against intentionality. — Dfpolis
There is no doubt that this is a reason some people believe in gods. There is no evidence that it is either the sole or the main reason. — Dfpolis
The prophet Jeremiah believed in fixed laws of nature as well as a God relating to humans. — Dfpolis
Aristotle based his philosophy on empirical observation, but saw the logical necessity of an unmoved mover or self-thinking thought. — Dfpolis
Cherry picking explanations, instead of acknowledging the complexity of human thought, is an indication of bias — Dfpolis
Really? What is so unique about the 20th century? — Dfpolis
Was not the recognition of fixed laws by Jeremiah, the foundation of mathematical physics by Aristotle, the discovery of inertia and instantaneous velocity by the medieval physicists, the astronomical work of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Laplace, and Darwin's theory real contributions to our understanding of nature? Or are you claiming that we now have a final understanding of physics? How can we when we have no theory of quantum gravity and do not understand ~95% of the mass of the cosmos? — Dfpolis
So, you think matters of fact should be decided by examining the motives leading people to study a subject? — Dfpolis
you have offered no rational argument, logical objection or shred of evidence to support your faith claim. — Dfpolis
I'm still waiting for an actual logical objection. Where and what is yours? I have suggested two simple arguments for you to "deconstruct" -- Aristotle's unmoved mover, and the argument in my evolution paper. Have at it and forget the ad hominem hand waving you seem to find comforting. — Dfpolis
In the next bit you falsely accuse me of giving no logical argument for the existence of God. I give one in my evolution paper, and add another in my book. I have also referred you to a number of arguments by other thinkers. — Dfpolis
You are confused. — Dfpolis
I called the concept of God you reject a straw man because it is not that of classical theism, but your personal construct -- which I reject as well. A straw man argument occurs when one ignores the actual opposing position and substitutes one more easily attacked. That is what you have done. — Dfpolis
Have you any documented examples of this? You seem operate in a Trumpian faerie land in which facts don't matter or are manufactured on whim. — Dfpolis
Here is another example of manufactured facts. The scientific method, including the need for controlled experiments, was fully and explicitly outlined and applied by Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), Oxford professor, teacher of Roger Bacon, and later bishop of Lincoln, in his works on optics (c 1220-35). He emphasized that we needed to compare theory with experiment. So, Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) did his work long after the scientific method was established. — Dfpolis
In his The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution, James Hannam makes clear that that the Church not only tolerated but promoted science -- seeing God as revealing Himself not only in Scripture, but in the Book of Nature. Thus, by better understanding nature, we better understand God. — Dfpolis
My, my. The ad hominems continue. In my evolution paper I cite well over 50 authors, many of whom are atheists -- some quite militant. The bibliography of my book is 24 pages of 10 pt. type and contains works by many who strongly disagree with me. You would be more credible if you verified your facts before attacking my character and methods. — Dfpolis
Plato and Aristotle were familiar with Democritus's ideas, and fought against them. They did so on behalf of other ideas, some of which were later, for centuries, to create obstacles to the growth of knowledge. Both insisted on rejecting Democritus's naturalistic explanations, in favour of trying to understand the world in finalistic terms - believing, that is, that everything that happens has a purpose; a way of thinking that would reveal itself to be very misleading for understanding the ways of nature - or in terms of good and evil, confusing human issues with matters which do not relate to us.
Aristotle speaks extensively about the ideas of Democritus, and with respect. Plato never cites Democritus, but scholars suspect today that this was out of deliberate choice and not for lack of knowledge of his works. Criticism of Democritus's ideas is implicit in several of Plato's texts, as in his critique of 'physicists', for example. In a passage in his Phaedo, Plato has Socrates articulate a reproach to all 'physicists' which will have a lasting resonance. He complains that when 'physicists' had explained that the Earth was round, he rebelled because he wanted to know what 'good' it was for the Earth to be round; how its roundness would benefit it. Plato's Socrates recounts how he had at first been enthusiastic about physics, but had come to be disillusioned by it:
"I had expected to be first told that the Earth was flat or round, but also that, afterwards, the reason for the necessity of this shape would be explained to me, starting from the principle of the best, proving to me that the best thing for the Earth is to have this shape. And if he had said that the Earth was at the centre of the world, then to show me how being at the centre was of benefit to the Earth".
How completely off track the great Plato was here! — Reality Is Not What It Seems, by Carlo Rovelli
a given situation, to predict a person's motives is to predict their behaviour.
— sime
I must disagree. We may have desires whose satisfaction we choose either to defer or not to satisfy at all. So, while motives and behavior my be correlated, there is no determinate relation between them. — Dfpolis
The conclusion of the uncaused cause could mean anything, it could be a substance of particles that are unbound by spacetime and in that higher dimension produce our dimensional universe. — Christoffer
It could therefore just be a dead "nothing". — Christoffer
So, for God to do any possible act, He must know all reality -- including us. — Dfpolis
Therefore, by the most logical conclusions of the only arguments that try to point to a God with pure deduction, the ontological argument, it doesn't point to there being any God aware of us. — Christoffer
There is no other evidence for any interaction between God and us or God and the universe. — Christoffer
Both insisted on rejecting Democritus's naturalistic explanations, in favour of trying to understand the world in finalistic terms - believing, that is, that everything that happens has a purpose; a way of thinking that would reveal itself to be very misleading for understanding the ways of nature - or in terms of good and evil, confusing human issues with matters which do not relate to us. — Reality Is Not What It Seems, by Carlo Rovelli
But if my attribution of motives to others is considered to be objective , then the motives of others must be describable in terms of behavioural regularity, for the personal feelings I have regarding other people's behaviour is subjective. — sime
So I can accept the reason/cause/motive distinction, but only if the subjective-objective distinction is rejected. Otherwise I cannot see how these distinctions can be maintained. — sime
Not if you are logical. To be the end of the line of explanation, something must be self-explaining. That means that what it is entails that it is. Consequently, its essence cannot limit the unspecified ability to act which its existence. So, the end of the line must be omnipotent, which means it is not limited by space and time, or in any other way. It must be able to perform any possible act. — Dfpolis
This is an irrational hypothesis. To be an explanation, it must act to effect what is explained. — Dfpolis
You are confused. When we speak of lines of explanation, there is an empirical datum to be explained. For example, Aristotle's unmoved mover is the end of the line of explanation for observed change. My meta-law argument explains the observed persistence of physical objects.
Ontological arguments use no data, and therefore can only show how we must think of something to be consistent, and not that what is thought of actually exists. — Dfpolis
You may repeat your faith claim as often as you wish, but doing so is irrational unless you are going to argue you case. — Dfpolis
You did not look at either Aristotle's argument for an unmoved mover or mine for a self-conserving meta-law. Thus, you objections do not address either the truth of the premises or the validity of the logical moves. These are the only two ways to show that a proof fails. When you address one or the other, I will continue the discussion. — Dfpolis
Well so conferring new value via re-purposing is something different than instrinsic purpose/teleology. Are you implying here that the ends of things [e.g. the end of an enzyme - to catalyze reaction, the end of a seed is to become a plant] are human designated?I don't think that the idea that agents act for ends requires that they only act for one end.
Also, I think part being a free agent is our ability to confer new value by re-purposing objects and capabilities. It is part of what Aquinas calls our participation in Divine Providence by reason. That is why I object to a narrow natural law ethics that does not allow for the legitimate creation of new ends.
I don't understand this since we are speaking about objects here and not people. I also think, if anything, a teleological framework would necessarily be limiting compared to a teleologically blank humanity since it rigidly identifies some set of ends as natural to an object/person. Humans wouldn't have the freedom to not self realize if their nature was to self-realize, for example.Of course. That is one reason free will is possible. There are multiple paths to human self-realization.
I'm unsure what free will has to do with teleology. Secondly this is a human specific thing, free will doesn't have anything to do with physical systems, they cannot choose actions because they lack brainsThis has to do with physical determinism vs. intentional freedom. If no free agent is involved, physical systems have only a single immanent line of action and so act deterministically. If there are agents able to conceive alternative lines of action, then multiple lines of action are immanent in the agents, and so we need not have deterministic time development.
Well my point in that excerpt was to just highlight that ends are not intrinsic to objects alone. A gene, for example, can NOT give rise to a protein all by itself, despite the function [or end] of a gene being to give rise to a protein. It's the gene plus the cellular machinery which gives rise to a protein.Are you thinking that the existence of ends entails determinism? I don't.
"Aristotle is adamant that, for a full range of cases, all four causes must be given in order to give an explanation. More explicitly, for a full range of cases, an explanation which fails to invoke all four causes is no explanation at all". Moreover, "Aristotle recognizes the explanatory primacy of the final cause over the efficient and material cause". — S
Aristotle is not committed to the view that everything has all four causes, let alone that everything has a final/formal cause. In the Metaphysics, for example, Aristotle says that an eclipse of the moon does not have a final cause (Metaph.1044 b 12). What happens when there is no final/formal cause like in the case of an eclipse of the moon? ... The interposition of the earth, that is, its coming in between the sun and the moon, is to be regarded as the efficient cause of the eclipse. Interestingly enough, Aristotle offers this efficient cause as the cause of the eclipse and that which has to be given in reply to the question “why?” (Metaph. 1044 b 13–15).
That's consistent with what Carlo Rovelli was talking about. He was talking about explanations. Both Plato and Aristotle were wrong on this one. — S
Plato and Aristotle were familiar with Democritus's ideas, and fought against them. They did so on behalf of other ideas, some of which were later, for centuries, to create obstacles to the growth of knowledge. — Reality Is Not What It Seems, by Carlo Rovelli
You are attaching attributes to what's at the end which is assuming you know what it is and how it works, — Christoffer
And if there's a possibility that time is circular, if the cosmic collapse has a probability of being true, then there is no first mover or cause. — Christoffer
A deductive logical argument cannot be false and if it can be false you cannot claim it as truth, evidence or logic. — Christoffer
No, I am deducing attributes from the little that the proof shows us about the end of the line. We know that it is, In Aristotle's proof, the ultimate cause of change, or, in my meta-law argument, the ultimate conserver of the laws of nature. We also know that, to be the end of the line, it must explain itself. These are things the respective proofs allow us to know for a fact. So, no assumptions are involved. — Dfpolis
You seem to have no idea that the proofs involve concurrent, not time-sequenced causality, so that the nature of time and/or the history of the universe are totally irrelevant. If you read the proofs, you may be able to make relevant objections. — Dfpolis
So, if you think the proofs fail you need to show either (1) they have false premises, or (2) they involve invalid logical moves. As you refuse to read the proofs, you can do neither. — Dfpolis
Please get back to me when you've read at least one of the proofs and think you can do (1) or (2). — Dfpolis
None of this contradicts the point I made, namely, that Aristotle explicitly states that some events have no final cause. — Dfpolis
You would have seen this if you read a few more sentences in the SEP article. Somehow, you missed the part of the article rebutting Rovelli. — Dfpolis
You have not made your case. Let's revisit Rovelli's text. — Dfpolis
I have no desire to defend Plato, only to show that Rovelli's view of Aristotle is quite mistaken. — Dfpolis
Democritus was wrong, and wrong, inter alia, for the reasons Aristotle gave. Democritus argues against Zeno that we cannot divide distances in half indefinitely because there are atoma, "uncutable" particles. This confuses a mathematical operation, which Zeno is considering, with a physical operation. Even is there were atoma, they would not prevent us from reflecting on line segments shorter than their diameter. So, Democritus hypothesis fails in its primary function, which was to rebut Zeno.
Having made the atoma hypothesis, Democritus goes on to postulate that atoma are separated by nothing. Aristotle correctly showed that (1) Zeno's problem was mathematical rather than physical, and (2) that if there were atoma separated by nothing, they would be in contact.
Modern physics has vindicated Aristotle and rejected Democritus. The locality postulate of quantum field theory is a restatement of Aristotle's principle that remote action requires mediation because agents only act where they are. There are no indivisible atoma. The atoms of modern chemistry are composed of divisible parts. All of the elementary quanta of high energy physics can be transformed into other kinds of quanta. Space is not nothing. Rather, it is, in Dirac's electron theory, a plenum of negative energy electrons; in quantum field theory, filled with all possible quantum fields; and in general relativity the bearer of observable fields described by the energy-momentum and the metric tensors.
Thus, Democritus was wrong on every essential point, while the continuous media and local action views of Aristotle command the field. — Dfpolis
Now for Rovelli's claim that some of Aristotle's ideas "were later, for centuries, to create obstacles to the growth of knowledge." The text you cite gives no examples... — Dfpolis
So, it is unclear which, if any, of Aristotle's ideas created "obstacles to the growth of knowledge." — Dfpolis
Well so conferring new value via re-purposing is something different than instrinsic purpose/teleology. Are you implying here that the ends of things [e.g. the end of an enzyme - to catalyze reaction, the end of a seed is to become a plant] are human designated? — aporiap
Of course. That is one reason free will is possible. There are multiple paths to human self-realization.
I don't understand this since we are speaking about objects here and not people. — aporiap
I also think, if anything, a teleological framework would necessarily be limiting compared to a teleologically blank humanity since it rigidly identifies some set of ends as natural to an object/person. Humans wouldn't have the freedom to not self realize if their nature was to self-realize, for example. — aporiap
I'm unsure what free will has to do with teleology. Secondly this is a human specific thing, free will doesn't have anything to do with physical systems, they cannot choose actions because they lack brains — aporiap
Well my point in that excerpt was to just highlight that ends are not intrinsic to objects alone. A gene, for example, can NOT give rise to a protein all by itself, despite the function [or end] of a gene being to give rise to a protein. It's the gene plus the cellular machinery which gives rise to a protein. — aporiap
But I think teleology definitely entails determinism or at least 'probabilistic determinism' [given initial conditions + context A --> 80% chance of P]. How else would ends be reproducibly met? — aporiap
Now imagine a person A who comes across T's. What would be the rational thing to do? To consider two explanations:
1. Coincidence
2. Teleology
You're ignoring option 1 in favor of 2 and that's a mistake. Isn't it? — TheMadFool
I'm not disputing your point, I'm disputing its relevance. I think that your interpretation of Rovelli was uncharitable. — S
You would have seen this if you read a few more sentences in the SEP article. Somehow, you missed the part of the article rebutting Rovelli. — Dfpolis
More uncharitable assumptions. Thanks. But you're mistaken. I did read further, and I didn't miss anything. — S
My intention wasn't to discuss the general ideas of each philosopher, but only those ideas relevant to the topic of teleology. — S
Within philosophy, the connection between teleology and Aristotle is well known, and its faults are well known also. — S
So, it is unclear which, if any, of Aristotle's ideas created "obstacles to the growth of knowledge." — Dfpolis
The misguided emphasis on seeking teleological, or "final cause", explanations. The key word here is "explanation", by the way. — S
You are making conclusions based on data that proves you "to know the truth", when in physics we still don't have data to complete a unification theory. — Christoffer
We know that the universe expanded quickly, referred to the Big Bang, we don't know what came before, we have no data to conclude what the cause was so we don't know what was before. — Christoffer
This is a very confused claim. First, physics uses the hypothetico-deductive method, not strict deduction. So, physics never knows with the kind of certainty that strict deduction brings. Second, we are not doing physics, so what physics does or does not know is totally irrelevant. — Dfpolis
(2) show that a logical move is invalid. — Dfpolis
Again, if you read the proofs, you would know that this entire line of objection is equally irrelevant. As I said last time, these proofs use concurrent, not time-sequenced, causality. So, as I also said last time, the nature of time and the history of the cosmos are irrelevant. If you actually read the proofs you would see that no assumption is made about how the universe began, or even that it did begin. — Dfpolis
Since you are still not making proper objections because you have not read the proofs, I will wait until you have read the proofs to continue. — Dfpolis
So, unless you can provide an objective definition of "coincidence" that logically excludes the possibility of more complex ends, it is unclear that being a "coincidence" is logically incompatible with serving an end. — Dfpolis
Physics has proven theories and they haven't proven anything to support any unification theory. — Christoffer
If you can't combine physics with your conclusion, you are essentially ditching science for your own belief. — Christoffer
Coincidence means an absence of causality. Teleology requires a causal connection. — TheMadFool
As physical determinism requires that all purely physical events be caused, by this definition, there are no coincidences — Dfpolis
You've heard of the maxim "correlation doesn't mean causation" — TheMadFool
Yes, I have. We do not have mere statistical correlation between initial and final states in physics. They are completely determined (caused) by the laws of motion. — Dfpolis
What has this to do with what we are discussing? Nothing! — Dfpolis
You continue to wander in the wilderness of self-imposed confusion. My meta-law argument is based on the laws of nature studied by physics, but you do not realize that because you are not open enough to even read a proof.
I am tied of wasting my time on someone who refuses to make any effort to inform themselves. — Dfpolis
The laws of physics govern everything. Do you mean to say that everything is causally connected? I once read a book on logic that showed, as an example of coincidence, the correlation between priesthood and murder rates - both seemed to have increased. The author then went on to say that this is simple coincidence i.e. there was no causality in the data. — TheMadFool
It has been pretty clear that we've been discussing proving God's existence and to do that you need to apply scientific facts and theories. — Christoffer
So, strictly speaking, there are no coincidences — Dfpolis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.