Is there any rational reason to care about rationality?

[chrisiacovetti]

This question's been on my mind lately. In some debates and discussions with friends of mine (with entirely different worldviews), I couldn't help but notice how high reason and rationality were being elevated in the arena of religious and philosophical speculation. It seemed logical and basic initially, but after a while I came to feel that not every question does, in fact, have any rational answer. "What is the meaning of life?" "Does God exist?" "Why does evil exist?" "Why is murder wrong?" "Why does reason itself matter?" (I realize some people may object to some of my examples, and argue that some of them do in fact have rational answers, but I hope my point is clear).

So why is reason so important? Is there any logical answer to the question? If not, what would the implications of this be?

[Imperious]

People just need a resolution to things.
I mean think about it, people are happier when they feel like they have a "ending" or when they see the light at the end of the tunnel.
To me, its all stupid, who really cares, just live life. Who cares about the after-world and all that, we will see what happens when we die, so why worry about it while we are here?

[The Atheist]

So why is reason so important? Is there any logical answer to the question? If not, what would the implications of this be?

Humans are pretty stupid, and without reason, no growth in knowledge would happen. We would never cure cancer, combat drug-resistant bacteria, or introduce new vaccines. We would never make any more scientific or mathematical discoveries, we would never travel outside the solar system, never explore new worlds with ever more-powerful telescopes.

Every question may not have a rational answer because some of them will involve emotion, which isn't rational, but physical questions will always have a rational answer. We may not know it yet - quantum mechanics is a good example - but the answer will be in the physical world.

[chrisiacovetti]

People just need a resolution to things.
I mean think about it, people are happier when they feel like they have a "ending" or when they see the light at the end of the tunnel.
To me, its all stupid, who really cares, just live life. Who cares about the after-world and all that, we will see what happens when we die, so why worry about it while we are here?

I can appreciate that.. I'm not sure whether or not people 'need' resolutions or not, but it certainly seems to help most of us.


Humans are pretty stupid, and without reason, no growth in knowledge would happen. We would never cure cancer, combat drug-resistant bacteria, or introduce new vaccines. We would never make any more scientific or mathematical discoveries, we would never travel outside the solar system, never explore new worlds with ever more-powerful telescopes.

Every question may not have a rational answer because some of them will involve emotion, which isn't rational, but physical questions will always have a rational answer. We may not know it yet - quantum mechanics is a good example - but the answer will be in the physical world.

Of course I didn't mean to say that reason doesn't matter when it comes to science, medicine, etc. I tried to make clear that I was only addressing "philosophical and religious spheres," not all knowledge or theory. I'm curious because of your username, though, do you believe that the question of God's existence is something physical to be found in the physical world? or is it subjective, in your mind?

[cafolini]

A rational reason is like a computerized computer or an insulting insult or ... an idiotic idiocy. ROFLMAO

[The Atheist]

I'm curious because of your username, though, do you believe that the question of God's existence is something physical to be found in the physical world? or is it subjective, in your mind?

God is only alive in minds. The question of a god's existence or non-existence only becomes a physical question when claims are made that it interacts with the physical world. Since all religions make that claim, then yes, god/s' existence can be tested in the physical world.

[cafolini]

God is only alive in minds. The question of a god's existence or non-existence only becomes a physical question when claims are made that it interacts with the physical world. Since all religions make that claim, then yes, god/s' existence can be tested in the physical world.

So, if you are told to jump from a fifth floor, even when you know it will lead to your death, and you have preached not to do it all your life, you can test it. It can be tested in the physical world? To prove it? LMAO
You probably wouldn't get diddly of what I just said.

I would not argue that God is not just in people's minds. That's obvious. That's the only place humans will find Him. I will argue that you don't know enough to find Him anywhere else. But in your ignoring (the act of accumulating ignorance) you are arrogant enough to destroy the mystery of life. You are indeed a dictator of ignorance.

[chrisiacovetti]

God is only alive in minds. The question of a god's existence or non-existence only becomes a physical question when claims are made that it interacts with the physical world. Since all religions make that claim, then yes, god/s' existence can be tested in the physical world.

Well... I see the logic behind some of what you're saying, but it still seems like you're making the same leap of faith in trying to turn the question of God's existence into a tangible, physical one. All religions or philosophies don't claim God interacts with the physical world: Deism, Gnosticism, Epicurianism, and some sorts of Buddhism and Judaism all come to mind. And even in the ones that do (Christianity, Islam, etc.), there are sects that say that God no longer works with the physical like he once did. This would also counter your statement that God's existence can be tested by his interaction (or lack thereof) with the physical. Would you disagree?

But, even beyond this, who's to say that the question of God's existence can only be assessed by what major religions have said about their versions of him? Every religion ever preached may be wrong, but this would not prove that God doesn't exist. Wouldn't it be a logical fallacy to take that leap? like this:

1. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are wrong
2. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. say there is a god that exists
3. Therefore, no God whatsoever exists

Just some thoughts of mine. I'm curious what you think; you seem really clever and intelligent to me. To be clear though: I'm only discussing for fun, I'm not trying to be aggressive or hostile or anything! Sometimes I don't know how to convey emotion or tone over typing on the internet.

Chris

[cafolini]

1. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are wrong
2. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. say there is a god that exists
3. Therefore, no God whatsoever exists

A good example of syllogistic idiocy.

[The Atheist]

Well... I see the logic behind some of what you're saying, but it still seems like you're making the same leap of faith in trying to turn the question of God's existence into a tangible, physical one. All religions or philosophies don't claim God interacts with the physical world: Deism, Gnosticism, Epicurianism, and some sorts of Buddhism and Judaism all come to mind.

Yes indeed, my hasty posting. I should have qualified the statement as "almost all", and I tend to exclude Buddhism from the umbrella of religion as it is unlike the other varieties.


And even in the ones that do (Christianity, Islam, etc.), there are sects that say that God no longer works with the physical like he once did. This would also counter your statement that God's existence can be tested by his interaction (or lack thereof) with the physical. Would you disagree?

No, I'd agree entirely, which is why I made the point about physical claims. If the god sits and watches only, then it is untestable. I'm not so sure that any christian religions do believe that though. Anglicanism is the closest I know, and they still pray for their god to take action, so they believe it interacts with the physical world, even if they don't make claims on its behalf.


But, even beyond this, who's to say that the question of God's existence can only be assessed by what major religions have said about their versions of him? Every religion ever preached may be wrong, but this would not prove that God doesn't exist. Wouldn't it be a logical fallacy to take that leap?

Sure, but if we take away the religions, there isn't a god to examine, so the question becomes moot. In all the millions of discoveries man has made, not one of them points to a non-physical origin, so the debate would never arise. In the case of deistic beliefs, an invisible entity that doesn't interact with the physical universe can be treated the same as one that doesn't exist. It always seems to me that having a god incapable of action is a bit of a waste of time.

Very few people think like that, as far as I can tell.


To be clear though: I'm only discussing for fun, I'm not trying to be aggressive or hostile or anything! Sometimes I don't know how to convey emotion or tone over typing on the internet.

Chris

Cheers. Don't be worried, you're not coming over at all hostile, and this is the way the subject is best discussed: theoretically.

I don't argue with believers about their faith, only about what their faith causes them to do.

[chrisiacovetti]

Oh, that all makes much more sense. What defines God's 'interaction with the physical' though? I think most religious people would say that, yes, he interacts with the physical - but only in a spiritual, nontestable way. A Muslim may believe, for instance, that God causes and orchestrates storms or tornados - this is untestable. It is physical interaction, but only through a spiritual mean. I don't think that any ordinary sects of any major religion believe that God interacts regularly and testably much beyond things like this. There are miraculous claims, sure, but these are rare and not constantly available for testing.

Would you disagree?
Chris

[cafolini]

Oh, that all makes much more sense. What defines God's 'interaction with the physical' though? I think most religious people would say that, yes, he interacts with the physical - but only in a spiritual, nontestable way. A Muslim may believe, for instance, that God causes and orchestrates storms or tornados - this is untestable. It is physical interaction, but only through a spiritual mean. I don't think that any ordinary sects of any major religion believe that God interacts regularly and testably much beyond things like this. There are miraculous claims, sure, but these are rare and not constantly available for testing.

Would you disagree?
Chris

Agree. And most miraculous claims do not coincide with the overwhelming majority that's perfectly aware of the theater where the roles are played or misplayed. No testing can be done by witnessing a miracle.

[The Atheist]

Oh, that all makes much more sense. What defines God's 'interaction with the physical' though? I think most religious people would say that, yes, he interacts with the physical - but only in a spiritual, nontestable way.

I'm going to presume you mean things like, "I was the only survivor of the plane/car crash because god wanted me to live", which is the only way a non-testable, physical action can work.

In that case, religion becomes a revolting parody of itself - like the clowns who play football, but thank their god before, during and after a game.

Your god can influence the result of a football game, but allows millions of kids to die of preventable causes?


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"


A Muslim may believe, for instance, that God causes and orchestrates storms or tornados - this is untestable.

No, that's exactly the kind of physical claim that can be tested, so it's not a good one.

A couple of good examples that spring to my mind are "Holy Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire)" and the "Host with the Most (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDp3nPQqL_o)".


There are miraculous claims, sure, but these are rare and not constantly available for testing.

Would you disagree?
Chris

No, I don't disagree that few claims are made, but I must qualify it by noting that the lack of claims is a very recent phenomenon. When there was no science to test miracles, they happened daily - every time the sun rose, effectively. The number of gaps that god/s can survive in is shrinking by the day and by the lap of the LHC at CERN. That's why even the Catholic church, once the home of daily miracles is reduced to accepting ridiculously scant evidence of miracles to support Mother Theresa's elevation to sainthood. (When she should be being tried posthumously for mass murder.)

I give religion no points for realising that making outrageous claims won't cut the mustard in 2013, although it seems that the more ignorant theists are still susceptible to believing what they're told by preachers.

Also, I must note that most new wave evangelical/pentecostal churches - which are the only ones growing - have lots and lots of miracles. Almost every service at that type of charismatic church is accompanied by at least one alleged miracle. Those are again testable, but are never allowed to be tested.

[Ecurb]

I've been to charismatic churches where people speak in tongues. It is a mundane, rote part of the church service, at the churches I saw (I was an anthropology grad student). I'll grant that they probably claim divine inspiration, but Catholics claim bread and wine turn miraculously into the body and blood of Christ.

The tired, old Christopher Hitchens calumnies against Mother Theresa are mere hyperbole, by the way. Why should she be "tried for mass murder"? I forget. But I think it's because (acc. Hitchens) she didn't treat the people in her hospices for their diseases. Of course, I haven't treated any of the people in Mother Theresa's hospices for their diseases either, and (probably) neither has the Atheist. Should we all be tried for murder?

[The Atheist]

I've been to charismatic churches where people speak in tongues. It is a mundane, rote part of the church service, at the churches I saw (I was an anthropology grad student). I'll grant that they probably claim divine inspiration, but Catholics claim bread and wine turn miraculously into the body and blood of Christ.

Speaking in tongues isn't even slightly miraculous. I'm talking about the cures that permeate most of the charismatic churches. Those cures are fake.

Transubstantiation is like homeopathy; not worth laughing at.


The tired, old Christopher Hitchens calumnies against Mother Theresa are mere hyperbole, by the way. Why should she be "tried for mass murder"? I forget. But I think it's because (acc. Hitchens) she didn't treat the people in her hospices for their diseases. Of course, I haven't treated any of the people in Mother Theresa's hospices for their diseases either, and (probably) neither has the Atheist. Should we all be tried for murder?

I hardly feel such a nonsense post is worth answering, but unless you are guilty - like Theresa - of spending money on unnecessary slush instead of actual medicine that would cure people in your care, instead of letting them die with clean sheets, then I don't think you're likely to face murder charges. I certainly haven't, so am quite safe.

The real hyperbole is canonising her.

[Ecurb]

You seem to be saying that spending money on something other than medicine that could cure people constitutes "murder". That (surely) is an extreme position (and one that probably makes everyone who posts here a "murderer").

What "unnecessary slush" are you referring to? Perhaps you are not making yourself clear (my vague memory is that Hitchens accused Mother Theresa of sucking up to rich donors, and then spending the money they donated in ways of which he, as an atheist, disapproved. He also accused her of class warfare -- not offering the indigent Indians the same medical care she received herself, something you and I are also doubtless guilty of.). What constitutes "unnecessary slush"? Is ANYONE who spends money on unnecessary slush a murderer? Or only Mother Theresa?

Orwell (whom you evidently admire) did say that saints should always be judged guilty until proven innocent, but he didn't say they should be judged guilty of murder. Perhaps we can reduce Mother Theresa's charges to manslaughter.

[The Atheist]

You seem to be saying that spending money on something other than medicine that could cure people constitutes "murder". That (surely) is an extreme position (and one that probably makes everyone who posts here a "murderer").

No, you just didn't read it properly.

I did say:


....that would cure people in your care...

The point of law is clear that if a person wilfully withholds life-saving medicine from people in their care, they will be charged (http://www.examiner.com/article/fundamentalist-christian-couple-lets-second-child-die-without-medical-attention) - and hopefully found guilty, of murder.



What constitutes "unnecessary slush"?

Briefly: prayer mats and overseas trips instead of medicine.


Orwell (whom you evidently admire) did say that saints should always be judged guilty until proven innocent, but he didn't say they should be judged guilty of murder. Perhaps we can reduce Mother Theresa's charges to manslaughter.

Yeah, I'd probably take manslaughter in a plea-bargain. That's the usual end conviction for parents as above.

[Ecurb]

Your link is a non-sequitur, Atheist. Preventing children from getting proper medical care, in this case, still didn't constitute "murder" -- the article mentions a similar case where the parents were charged with "Involuntary manslaughter". Mother Theresa was not a parent; she was not legally (or morally) required to provide medical care for anyone. Indigent Indians are not dependent children, despite lingering paternalistic attitudes on the part of their former colonial rulers. As far as I know, Mother Theresa did not prevent any Indians using her hospices from seeking medical care elsewhere. Every church (or movie theater, or sports stadium) was built with money that could have been spent on medical care for the indigent.

Of course I agree with you (and Hitchens) that the money Mother Theresa raised could have been better spent, just like we probably agree that the billions spent on building churches could be better spent. However, when you want to throw people in prison for disagreeing with us, I'm reminded of other jack-booted atheists -- like Joseph Stalin -- who saw no problem with outlawing freedom of thought and religion. It's reasonable to think Mother Theresa misspent money; it's not reasonable to think she should have been guillotined (or even thrown in prison) for it.

Hitchens' book, by the way, is entitled "Missionary Position".

[The Atheist]

However, when you want to throw people in prison for disagreeing with us,...

What has "disagreeing with us" got to do with it. I'd throw them in prison for breaking the law.

I'll grant that I don't know what the Indian legal system requires for people under medical care, but in all the civilised countries I can think, if you have people under your medical care, your first responsibility is to provide for them, and withholding medicine will invite manslaughter charges. I accept that there isn't a deliberate attempt to kill, so murder is a bit over the top, but when there are as many deaths involved as in Theresa's name, I can cheerfully upgrade it from manslaughter.


...I'm reminded of other jack-booted atheists -- like Joseph Stalin ...

Stalin & Hitler in two consecutive posts, is that a record? (different threads,too!)

[mal4mac]

Humans are pretty stupid, and without reason, no growth in knowledge would happen.

But is growth in knowledge important? Many uneducated people live happy and contented lives. Many "seekers after knowledge" are driven, unhappy people.

[The Atheist]

I mean as a species, not individually.

[MorpheusSandman]

I think the best use of rationality is problem solving. Irrational people often find themselves in messes that, firstly, could've been prevented with some rational planning and, secondly, could be solved if they had the rationality to know how to solve it. Educating myself on "the art of rationality" has really transformed the way in which I approach life and problems, and it's made things (even bad things) much easier to deal with. So I certainly think rationality has its utilitarian aspects. On the other hand:


I came to feel that not every question does, in fact, have any rational answer. "What is the meaning of life?" "Does God exist?" "Why does evil exist?" "Why is murder wrong?" "Why does reason itself matter?"There is a school of philosophy that says that reason/logic can't tell you anything new you don't already know. The thing about questions like these is that there isn't any external, objective answer, so there really isn't a way in which to reason your way to a correct answer. Things like "what is the meaning of life?" assumes that life has some objective meaning that can be found outside ourselves. Similarly, "why does evil exist?" and "why is murder wrong?" assume that there is something objective as evil, or that murder is actually wrong. The truth of these matters is that we come pre-programmed to survive, reproduce, and be happy, so when things threaten that we call them "evil" and "wrong." These terms describe our subjective reaction to external events on us, and they "exist" because evolution has programmed us to survive. Similarly, it's programmed other beings to survive as well, and sometimes one being surviving means making it so another being doesn't survive, and, in such a scenario, it's only "evil" to the one that doesn't survive. You can't reason your way to God's existence either, since existence isn't something you can prove by reason. You may can reason it's more or less likely given the evidence, and then it will come down to how you assess that evidence, but that has as much to do with assimilating knowledge as opposed to reason. Similarly, we can only answer the evil/wrong question because of our discovery of evolution and how it affects us mentally and socially. So there's another case of science leading to facts that answer certain questions. Sometimes the answers turn out to be completely different than what we expected.

[cafolini]

I think the best use of rationality is problem solving. Irrational people often find themselves in messes that, firstly, could've been prevented with some rational planning and, secondly, could be solved if they had the rationality to know how to solve it. Educating myself on "the art of rationality" has really transformed the way in which I approach life and problems, and it's made things (even bad things) much easier to deal with. So I certainly think rationality has its utilitarian aspects. On the other hand:

There is a school of philosophy that says that reason/logic can't tell you anything new you don't already know. The thing about questions like these is that there isn't any external, objective answer, so there really isn't a way in which to reason your way to a correct answer. Things like "what is the meaning of life?" assumes that life has some objective meaning that can be found outside ourselves. Similarly, "why does evil exist?" and "why is murder wrong?" assume that there is something objective as evil, or that murder is actually wrong. The truth of these matters is that we come pre-programmed to survive, reproduce, and be happy, so when things threaten that we call them "evil" and "wrong." These terms describe our subjective reaction to external events on us, and they "exist" because evolution has programmed us to survive. Similarly, it's programmed other beings to survive as well, and sometimes one being surviving means making it so another being doesn't survive, and, in such a scenario, it's only "evil" to the one that doesn't survive. You can't reason your way to God's existence either, since existence isn't something you can prove by reason. You may can reason it's more or less likely given the evidence, and then it will come down to how you assess that evidence, but that has as much to do with assimilating knowledge as opposed to reason. Similarly, we can only answer the evil/wrong question because of our discovery of evolution and how it affects us mentally and socially. So there's another case of science leading to facts that answer certain questions. Sometimes the answers turn out to be completely different than what we expected.

There exists no question at all that you may reason to a correct answer as a matter of fact. Reasoning doesn't work. It's an old vestige of obsolete deductive efforts, stupidly called logic.

[The Atheist]

There exists no question at all that you may reason to a correct answer as a matter of fact. Reasoning doesn't work. It's an old vestige of obsolete deductive efforts, stupidly called logic.

These are much better than the Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator.

[MorpheusSandman]

There exists no question at all that you may reason to a correct answer as a matter of fact. Reasoning doesn't work. It's an old vestige of obsolete deductive efforts, stupidly called logic.While I would agree that reasoning and logic have their limits, I can't go as far as you do here. It still remains true that if you have true premises with valid inferences then you will end up with a true conclusion. On the other hand, it's often the truthfulness of those premises that ends up being questioned. We often try to back track as far as is possible to find premises we deem are true. But, in general, I do agree that deductive efforts are inevitably limited. Most of the best usage of and work in modern logic is being done in inductive modes in areas like decision theory and the various usages of Bayes' Theorem, which are forms of logic and reasoning. People should embrace probabilistic reasoning more than they tend to.

[cafolini]

Induction is disguised deduction. The lab cannot provide all possibilities. Induction is a bigger fraud than mere stupid deductions. Good inferences are drawn without reasoning from indirect thinking, which is what the faudulent fascists call "weak proof."
Multiple choice examinations guide the fraud with not even an infinitesimal of possibilities. Logic is stricly symbolic or it is fake.

[The Atheist]

Induction is disguised deduction. The lab cannot provide all possibilities. Induction is a bigger fraud than mere stupid deductions. Good inferences are drawn without reasoning from indirect thinking, which is what the faudulent fascists call "weak proof."
Multiple choice examinations guide the fraud with not even an infinitesimal of possibilities. Logic is stricly symbolic or it is fake.(my bold)

You really ought to print a book of these, they are pure gold.

The bolded sentence is another absolute classic.

[MorpheusSandman]

I'm surprised you didn't bold "Induction is disguised deduction." That literally made me do a double-take... a bit like saying blue is disguised green.

[Ecurb]

[QUOTE=The Atheist;1216583]What has "disagreeing with us" got to do with it. I'd throw them in prison for breaking the law.

I'll grant that I don't know what the Indian legal system requires for people under medical care, but in all the civilised countries I can think, if you have people under your medical care, your first responsibility is to provide for them, and withholding medicine will invite manslaughter charges. I accept that there isn't a deliberate attempt to kill, so murder is a bit over the top, but when there are as many deaths involved as in Theresa's name, I can cheerfully upgrade it from manslaughter. [ /QUOTE]

Mother Theresa was a nun, not a medical doctor. She provided “hospices” for dying, indigent Indians. A hospice is not a hospital – it is “a place of rest and shelter”.

Therefore, Mother Theresa did not have “people under (her) medical care.” If you want medical care, you should go to a doctor, not a nun. If The Atheist was gravely ill, I doubt he would run down to the nearest Nunnery and demand treatment (perhaps threatening to arrest and imprison the nuns if they failed to provide it).

Mother Theresa publicly stated that she did not provide medical care in her hospices; as a nun, she felt it was her duty to love the dying, indigent Indians, but she had neither the means nor the training to doctor them. She was more interested in her patients’ (and her nuns’) souls than in their bodies. The Atheist doubtless finds this ridiculous, as he is entitled to. However, when he argues that it is (or should be) criminal, he is arguing against freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and the economic freedom to spend one’s money as one chooses.

I’ll grant that while Mother Theresa had no more moral responsibility to provide medical care to indigent Indians than The Atheist or Christopher Hitchens, she did have more opportunity. For Hitchens, The Atheist, and me, out of sight is out of mind, and we can cheerfully ignore suffering on the other side of the world. Mother Theresa was (at least) confronted with the question of how to spend the money she raised. However, this is a moral issue, and should not be a legal one.

If Mother Theresa is guilty of manslaughter – so are Christopher Hitchens and the Atheist (and the rest of us, probably).


Stalin & Hitler in two consecutive posts, is that a record? (different threads,too!)

False accusations do you no credit, Atheist, although, in your case, you can make use of the traditional (although extra-legal) excuse. Ignorance.

[The Atheist]

I'm surprised you didn't bold "Induction is disguised deduction." That literally made me do a double-take... a bit like saying blue is disguised green.

The whole thing was worth bolding!

:)


Mother Theresa was a nun, not a medical doctor. She provided “hospices” for dying, indigent Indians. A hospice is not a hospital – it is “a place of rest and shelter”.

Therefore, Mother Theresa did not have “people under (her) medical care.” If you want medical care, you should go to a doctor, not a nun.

Administrators and owners of hospices, rest homes, hospitals and many other types of care facility are most often not medical doctors. A rest home is a perfect analogy, because while people go there to wait for death, the rest home owner - hardly ever a doctor - has a legal duty of care to the residents to delay it for as long as possible.


If The Atheist was gravely ill, I doubt he would run down to the nearest Nunnery and demand treatment (perhaps threatening to arrest and imprison the nuns if they failed to provide it).

Are you going to be dishonest all the way through this post? It wasn't a nunnery and the analogy is nonsensical.


Mother Theresa publicly stated that she did not provide medical care in her hospices; as a nun, she felt it was her duty to love the dying, indigent Indians, but she had neither the means nor the training to doctor them.

But she sure as hell had the cash, and it's the bees that bring the doctors. Publicly stated, eh? How many of her patients do you reckon could read, let alone read the papers daily?


She was more interested in her patients’ (and her nuns’) souls than in their bodies. The Atheist doubtless finds this ridiculous, as he is entitled to. However, when he argues that it is (or should be) criminal, he is arguing against freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and the economic freedom to spend one’s money as one chooses.

More nonsense. I'm perfectly happy for her to have provided hospice care and worry about their souls - I love the irony that she died basically an atheist, too - but it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of expression or religion. I'm talking about legal responsibilities.

She specifically enticed people into her hospices to die, knowing full well that many of them were curable. Try the rest home analogy again. If an owner failed to provide medical care to residents, he would be nailed to the wall: by law.


I’ll grant that while Mother Theresa had no more moral responsibility to provide medical care to indigent Indians than The Atheist or Christopher Hitchens, she did have more opportunity. For Hitchens, The Atheist, and me, out of sight is out of mind, and we can cheerfully ignore suffering on the other side of the world. Mother Theresa was (at least) confronted with the question of how to spend the money she raised. However, this is a moral issue, and should not be a legal one.

If Mother Theresa is guilty of manslaughter – so are Christopher Hitchens and the Atheist (and the rest of us, probably).

False accusations do you no credit, Atheist, although, in your case, you can make use of the traditional (although extra-legal) excuse. Ignorance.

And lovely to see the outpouring of nonsense right to the end.

If you have nothing to add, why bother posting absurdly nonsensical analogies and statements that bear no relationship to the question?

You understand implicitly the difference between what Theresa did and the everyday person who apathetically ignores the problem, yet you try to equate them. Nice work.

[Ecurb]

Here's an attempt to respond to Atheist's post, using his own style


Administrators

Why limit it to adminstrators?


and owners

Mother Thersa "owned" nothing. This is assinine.


of hospices

Since you clearly have no idea what hospices are, I won't even bother to respond to this laughable comment.


...a perfect analogy

Thanks. Finally you're making sense.



...nice work...


Thanks, but, coming from you, no compliment.

Atheist's yapping, point by point posting style is worth no more than a lampoon; it certainly isn't worth a response. India is not Europe or the U.S.; Indians die of treatable diseases regularly. Mother Theresa provided hospices where they could die in relatively comfortable beds instead of in the rain and dirt of the streets. She did not provide medical care, and never said she was going to -- just like Christopher Hitchens never provided medical care and never said he was going to. Hitchens and Theresa are therefore equally guilty of murder or manslaughter (although, as I pointed out, Mother Theresa had more difficult decisions to make about how to spend the money she raised than Hitchens who, wicked atheist that he was, never raised any money for indigent Indians.

[The Atheist]

Atheist's yapping, point by point posting style is worth no more than a lampoon; it certainly isn't worth a response.

Irony: continuing to respond.

Notes for you next time:

1 "asinine" only has one s. Next time choose words you can at least spell, let alone understand.
2 I know what a hospice is. Allowing patients to die of infection while waiting for them to die of cancer is not an option.
3 I did say "Administrators and owners". Again, I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference.

[Ecurb]

According to the Atheist, the more you try help people, the more guilty you are if you "allow (them) to die". If you don't help them at all, you are guiltless. However, if you provide sick, indigent people with shelter, and they die under your roof, you should be clapped in irons and shipped off to prison. Yes, Atheist, people die of infections. Yes, some infections are treatable. The question is: who has the legal responsibility to treat them? Is it the responsibility of whoever is providing the dying and indigent with shelter? If so, why?

Let's look at another way: who was kinder to the ill, indigent Indians? Hitchens, The Atheist, and I, who did absolutely nothing for them? Or Mother Theresa, who provided them with beds, love, and shelter, but failed (just as The Atheist, Hitchens and I did) to provide them with treatment for their infections?

[cafolini]

But Theresa tortured terminal patients. One had to tell her to tell Jesus not to hug her so hard. It gave her a lot of pain.
ROFLMAO

[Scheherazade]

~

~ R e m i n d e r ~

The OP:
This question's been on my mind lately. In some debates and discussions with friends of mine (with entirely different worldviews), I couldn't help but notice how high reason and rationality were being elevated in the arena of religious and philosophical speculation. It seemed logical and basic initially, but after a while I came to feel that not every question does, in fact, have any rational answer. "What is the meaning of life?" "Does God exist?" "Why does evil exist?" "Why is murder wrong?" "Why does reason itself matter?" (I realize some people may object to some of my examples, and argue that some of them do in fact have rational answers, but I hope my point is clear).

So why is reason so important? Is there any logical answer to the question? If not, what would the implications of this be?Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

[Ecurb]

"Reason" has long been a problem for materialists and empiricists. If all of our thought processes are merely the result of material (chemical and physical) reactions in our brains, what reason do we have to trust them? Given this materialistic version of causation, why is faith in logic superior to faith in magic, or ritual (or anything else we happen to have faith in)? They all come from the same source: evolution, chemistry, and physics. I believe this was C.S. Lewis's argument against materialism in one of his books. As with many metaphysical questions, there are no good answers (that I know of, anyway). In addition, it should be noted that although "faith" in reason may be contrary to strict materialism, it is consistent with other non-religious systems of thought.

That's why postmodernism has provided such an effective critique of "the age of reason" modernism. Like the religious worldviews the preceded them, modernism, empericism, and materialism are built on a foundation of culturally constituted and unverifiable axioms and postulates. Faith that the whole can be built logically from the parts has been eroded (postmodern thought sees the possibility of the whole being more than the parts). Faith in grand, reductionist theorizing has been replaced by contingent and localized theories. "Things fall apart (as Yeats wrote, in The Second Coming), the center cannot hold". Unfortunately, although postmodernism has provided a cogent critique of modernism and materialism, it has been less successful at providing an alternative. "What rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?" -- (Yeats)

[cafolini]

LOL I know he said that. Yeats didn't realize it was obviously the other way around? He didn't see the beast coming from Bethlehem?

[The Atheist]

This question's been on my mind lately. In some debates and discussions with friends of mine (with entirely different worldviews), I couldn't help but notice how high reason and rationality were being elevated in the arena of religious and philosophical speculation. It seemed logical and basic initially, but after a while I came to feel that not every question does, in fact, have any rational answer. "What is the meaning of life?" "Does God exist?" "Why does evil exist?" "Why is murder wrong?" "Why does reason itself matter?" (I realize some people may object to some of my examples, and argue that some of them do in fact have rational answers, but I hope my point is clear).

I have to put my foot firmly in deterministic camp and say that everything can be explained rationally, although we don't know a lot of the answers yet.

The three questions you pose are dead simple, for instance:

1 There isn't one
2 No
3 Evil is a human construct. Is a dog/lion/bear/baboon that kills its young evil? Is a storm that kills 100,000 people evil?

[MorpheusSandman]

"Reason" has long been a problem for materialists and empiricists. If all of our thought processes are merely the result of material (chemical and physical) reactions in our brains, what reason do we have to trust them? Given this materialistic version of causation, why is faith in logic superior to faith in magic, or ritual (or anything else we happen to have faith in)? They all come from the same source: evolution, chemistry, and physics. I believe this was C.S. Lewis's argument against materialism in one of his books. As with many metaphysical questions, there are no good answers (that I know of, anyway).I'm aware of CS Lewis' argument and I don't find it a strong one. One thing evolution has shown is that random processes will adapt towards what allows it to survive in its given environment, and this can be applied to almost everything, including the chemical and physical reactions in our brains. If we set towards trying to figure out the way things work, then we can device a whole network of cause-and-effect or, perhaps more accurately, entanglement implying cause-and-effect (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/), in order to figure out. We can apply the same filtering system to our own minds and the modes of reasoning it produces. I've long argued that all animals probably have some instinctual form of logic/reasoning in their own minds that allows their brains to process information and act in the manner that will most likely produce the desired result. Early man didn't need to know what a "modus ponens" was to intuitively figure out that "if stick hurts me, it will hurt animal; stick hurts me, stick will hurt animal!" and, what's more, their empirical experiment proved them right, so they were able to pass on this reasoning mode to the next generation because the found out that it worked.


That's why postmodernism has provided such an effective critique of "the age of reason" modernism. Like the religious worldviews the preceded them, modernism, empericism, and materialism are built on a foundation of culturally constituted and unverifiable axioms and postulates. Faith that the whole can be built logically from the parts has been eroded (postmodern thought sees the possibility of the whole being more than the parts). Faith in grand, reductionist theorizing has been replaced by contingent and localized theories. "Things fall apart (as Yeats wrote, in The Second Coming), the center cannot hold". Unfortunately, although postmodernism has provided a cogent critique of modernism and materialism, it has been less successful at providing an alternative. "What rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?" -- (Yeats)I have no idea what you're on about here: what in the world does modernism and post-modernism have to do with empiricism and materialism? If anything, since the advent of modern science, empiricism and materialism have begun dominating scientific and philosophical discourse to a degree that it never has, and, AFAICT, post-modernism did absolutely nothing to slow it down. In fact, Einstein's General Relativity fits quite well into postmodernism's fractured, multiple, relative perspective on matters. Even Godel showed that that mathematical systems can either be complete or consistent, but not both, and that there will always be certain axioms unproved within a consistent system. Yet these things still fit perfectly with empiricism, materialism, and rationality.

[MorpheusSandman]

I have to put my foot firmly in deterministic camp and say that everything can be explained rationally.I do wonder about the limits (perhaps even constraints) of rationality when trying to process things that are outside the confines of our own universe. I think that's why there's so much controversy in modern cosmology and quantum physics; our logic is so tied up into our various systems that break down at certain points in both.

[Ecurb]

I'm aware of CS Lewis' argument and I don't find it a strong one. One thing evolution has shown is that random processes will adapt towards what allows it to survive in its given environment, and this can be applied to almost everything, including the chemical and physical reactions in our brains. If we set towards trying to figure out the way things work, then we can device a whole network of cause-and-effect or, perhaps more accurately, entanglement implying cause-and-effect (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/), in order to figure out. We can apply the same filtering system to our own minds and the modes of reasoning it produces. I've long argued that all animals probably have some instinctual form of logic/reasoning in their own minds that allows their brains to process information and act in the manner that will most likely produce the desired result. Early man didn't need to know what a "modus ponens" was to intuitively figure out that "if stick hurts me, it will hurt animal; stick hurts me, stick will hurt animal!" and, what's more, their empirical experiment proved them right, so they were able to pass on this reasoning mode to the next generation because the found out that it worked.

I have no idea what you're on about here: what in the world does modernism and post-modernism have to do with empiricism and materialism? If anything, since the advent of modern science, empiricism and materialism have begun dominating scientific and philosophical discourse to a degree that it never has, and, AFAICT, post-modernism did absolutely nothing to slow it down. In fact, Einstein's General Relativity fits quite well into postmodernism's fractured, multiple, relative perspective on matters. Even Godel showed that that mathematical systems can either be complete or consistent, but not both, and that there will always be certain axioms unproved within a consistent system. Yet these things still fit perfectly with empiricism, materialism, and rationality.

I dont remember Lewis's argument all that well, but I think he would say that natural selection selects for belief systems that improve descendent-leaving success -- which does not necessarily imply that it selects for belief systems that are "true". Obviously (for example) there may very well be (or have been in the past) selective advantages to religious world-views -- and that may be why so many people were religious. But can we say with any certainty that our own non-religious world-views aren't based on the same selective processes?

Empiricism and materialism are modernist (I think, although it doesn't much matter what labels we give them). They tend to be reductionist (we can understand the whole by looking at the parts). The Atheist says, "I have to put my foot firmly in deterministic camp and say that everything can be explained rationally, although we don't know a lot of the answers yet." I assume he means this in a reductionist way -- given more complete knowledge, we can "reduce" the workings of the Universe to physical principles. I'd suggest (and I'm certainly no expert on Postmodernism) that the postmodernist approach would be to reject that and say, "1) The whole can be more than a sum of the parts; 2) Reductionist explanations are often inferior to those using multiple levels of reasoning, and a more web-oriented mode of thinking; 3) all 'rational' explanations are culturally constituted, influenced by lingusitic limitations, and subjective."

If you're interested in Einstein and Godel, here's a New Yorker article about their relationship at Princeton. I highly recomend it (not for anything having to do with this thread, but just because it's a good article): http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/28/050228crat_atlarge

[cafolini]

When the modernist hears that the whole is more than the sum of the parts, he nods yes like a baboom because he/she feels achieving a whole is some kind of marvel. When you say the same thing to a postmodernist, he thinks that a lot has been missed in determining the whole parts. He/she doesn't think that there is in fact a whole. She thinks the whole is unachievable. She/He's coming from awareness of what can be done, not from idiotic wholism.

[The Atheist]

I do wonder about the limits (perhaps even constraints) of rationality when trying to process things that are outside the confines of our own universe.

That would be a fair point, but I don't acknowledge any other universes at this stage, so am happy to just ignore the idea.. No part of physics calls for their existence, there is zero evidence that there is such a thing, and every theory I've seen proposing additional universes has been puerile garbage.

Given the scale of the universe we do inhabit, I can't see any possibility of the question being other than theoretical anyway.


I think that's why there's so much controversy in modern cosmology and quantum physics; our logic is so tied up into our various systems that break down at certain points in both.

That's not quite accurate. The big question came about when the matter/energy deficit became apparent and lunatic theories have gradually evolved into a fair semblance of consensus around dark matter/energy.

If you have a look at the controversies that do exist, they mostly surround the lunatic theories that haven't yet lost favour entirely. String theory, for example. Very hard to disprove, but not entertained beyond a few media junkies.

[The Atheist]

I'd suggest (and I'm certainly no expert on Postmodernism) that the postmodernist approach would be to reject that and say, "1) The whole can be more than a sum of the parts; 2) Reductionist explanations are often inferior to those using multiple levels of reasoning, and a more web-oriented mode of thinking; 3) all 'rational' explanations are culturally constituted, influenced by lingusitic limitations, and subjective."

I'm quite happy for postmodernists to be wrong. They have no impact on science, especially physics.

The really sad part of that kind of thinking is that it's no more than a plea for magic. Conan Doyle and the Cottingley Fairies.

Look at it: "the whole is more than the sum of its parts".

Physics tells us that that is impossible, because if there is more than the parts, then we missed a part. The only thing that can be added to the parts that science cannot measure is magic. Conscience, consciousness, love, emotion and abstract thinking are the main culprits in the search for non-physical existence and I know many otherwise quite rational people who firmly believe that those things are "above" the physical level.

Interesting you mention C S Lewis, because he quite rightly used exactly that argument in favour of god. He was merely copying old Tommy Aquinas so many centuries earlier with the Summa Theologica. If you accept the belief that there is more than the sum, then the path can only lead to the Abrahamic god.

That isn't why I reject the thinking, by the way - I reject the idea because like multiverses and string theory, it's nonsense backed up by neither logic nor evidence.

[MorpheusSandman]

I dont remember Lewis's argument all that well, but I think he would say that natural selection selects for belief systems that improve descendent-leaving success -- which does not necessarily imply that it selects for belief systems that are "true". Obviously (for example) there may very well be (or have been in the past) selective advantages to religious world-views -- and that may be why so many people were religious. But can we say with any certainty that our own non-religious world-views aren't based on the same selective processes?I never meant to suggest that natural selection would select belief systems that were true; if anything, I think natural selection has lead to a combination of true beliefs and useful biases/illusions/lies in our cognitive processes. I can certainly see advantages to religious belief systems for a primitive man (strengthen communities, give them confidence that they were chosen/special, justify their desire to conquer/convert, etc.) which would increase their chances of both survival and reproduction. All I meant was that if someone is concerned with truth, we can analyze our own cognitive processes in a rigorous manner and determine which lead to truths and which don't. There's an entire section of studies in cognitive neuroscience around this that deals with, eg, biases and how they distort out ability to find truth. Even in these biases, though, we can often understand why they would've been useful in our survival. Take, eg, our bias to assume agency behind phenomena. Imagine two early humans in the wild; the leaves rustle, and one of them immediately runs assuming it's a predator, and the other stays put because he's not sure. Well, the one who's not sure may be right most of the time (it's probably just the wind), but the time that he's not right and it's a predator means that he's taken out of the gene pool. In such situations, it's better to respond in the manner that will guarantee survival 100% of the time as opposed to responding in the matter that's more likely to be true.


Empiricism and materialism are modernist (I think, although it doesn't much matter what labels we give them). They tend to be reductionist (we can understand the whole by looking at the parts). The Atheist says, "I have to put my foot firmly in deterministic camp and say that everything can be explained rationally, although we don't know a lot of the answers yet." I assume he means this in a reductionist way -- given more complete knowledge, we can "reduce" the workings of the Universe to physical principles. I'd suggest (and I'm certainly no expert on Postmodernism) that the postmodernist approach would be to reject that and say, "1) The whole can be more than a sum of the parts; 2) Reductionist explanations are often inferior to those using multiple levels of reasoning, and a more web-oriented mode of thinking; 3) all 'rational' explanations are culturally constituted, influenced by lingusitic limitations, and subjective."Empiricism and materialism far precedes modernism; one can find strains of the former going back to Aristotle, and the latter have been scattered about the world since before 1000AD. The primary difference between modernism and postmodernism is that the former, while recognizing that there was an influx of fractured perspectives/views in the world, thought that everything could be collected together into a coherent whole; while the latter, while recognizing the same thing, thought that coherency was impossible. Both tended to try to combine a number of varied voices/perspectives, but the difference is that postmodernism didn't make an attempt at making them cohere. If anything, it's the modernist that would say the whole is more than sum of the parts, while a postmodernist, would just try to produce all of the various parts without an attempt at creating a whole. I'm also not sure how you're using "reductionist," since in science reductionism is more cleanly defined as reducing everything down to its smallest component and giving it a name. A reductionist would never say "red," they'd give you a number that a particular shade of red corresponds to.


That would be a fair point, but I don't acknowledge any other universes at this stage, so am happy to just ignore the idea.. No part of physics calls for their existence, there is zero evidence that there is such a thing, and every theory I've seen proposing additional universes has been puerile garbage. I think you need to do more research on this, because just about every modern area of science is pointing towards multiple universes, as there is too much that doesn't make sense without them. The recent theory of Inflation, eg, which explained how the visible universe was rendered flat (something necessary for life), predicts multiple universes and was recently corroborated by examinations of the CMBR.


That's not quite accurate. The big question came about when the matter/energy deficit became apparent and lunatic theories have gradually evolved into a fair semblance of consensus around dark matter/energy.

If you have a look at the controversies that do exist, they mostly surround the lunatic theories that haven't yet lost favour entirely. String theory, for example. Very hard to disprove, but not entertained beyond a few media junkies.I was actually thinking about how our models for gravity break down inside black holes and at the singularity. We can still model them via quantum physics, but we lose General Relativity as the numbers come out to infinities, so something is clearly wrong. The attempt at reconcile QP and GR has taken up a huge chunk of theoretical physics for around the last century, and, so far, the only thing that has been successful at reconciliation is the many-worlds interpretation of QP, that solves a couple other mysteries as well and is actually much simpler. String Theory (and practically every other quantized gravity theory out there) has yet to be really tested, much less proven/disproven. Right now all we have are theories with a logical consistency but without an ability to test them against each other. We may be able to when quantum computing becomes available, but we're looking at several decades if current trends hold.

[The Atheist]

I think you need to do more research on this, because just about every modern area of science is pointing towards multiple universes, as there is too much that doesn't make sense without them. The recent theory of Inflation, eg, which explained how the visible universe was rendered flat (something necessary for life), predicts multiple universes and was recently corroborated by examinations of the CMBR.

I try to stay fairly up to date with theoretical physics from an amateur perspective, but I have yet to see anything compelling - even Hawking's analysis seems too silly for serious contemplation.

The worst thing about it is we're putting the cart before the horse. Given our lack of understanding of quantum physics and dark energy/matter, why posit a question that may not even be required? Not to mention that if we have interacting, external universes, the mere fact they interact would make them part of this universe anyway.

In the case of multiverses, it is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. So far, nothing like that exists.



I was actually thinking about how our models for gravity break down inside black holes and at the singularity. We can still model them via quantum physics, but we lose General Relativity as the numbers come out to infinities, so something is clearly wrong. The attempt at reconcile QP and GR has taken up a huge chunk of theoretical physics for around the last century, and, so far, the only thing that has been successful at reconciliation is the many-worlds interpretation of QP, that solves a couple other mysteries as well and is actually much simpler. String Theory (and practically every other quantized gravity theory out there) has yet to be really tested, much less proven/disproven. Right now all we have are theories with a logical consistency but without an ability to test them against each other. We may be able to when quantum computing becomes available, but we're looking at several decades if current trends hold.

Well, the universe still has several billion years of existence left at the very least, so a few decades either way aren't going to matter much.

In the meantime, the questions are purely theoretical and I'm happy to wait until the extraordinary evidence appears. Those things that, as you note, don't fit into our present physics could equally have a mundane explanation that we just aren't aware of yet.

[cafolini]

As predicted by me on several ocassions, Catholic fake Stephen Hawking (commissioned by the Roman Catholics to fabricate a new genesis with the Bang) now boycotts Israeli talks, etc.

[MorpheusSandman]

Given our lack of understanding of quantum physics and dark energy/matter, why posit a question that may not even be required?One thing I think many misunderstand about the proposed "multiverse" is that it has, most commonly, come about as a predictive consequence of theories being used to answer other, unrelated questions. I already mentioned inflation, but many-worlds exists primarily to explain the so-called wavefunction collapse, as well as the other mysteries of QP that doesn't allow it to be reconciled with GR. For years, physicists thought that there must be some "split" between the quantum and macro levels, but increasingly large objects have been put in a state of quantum superposition without any split being found, so it's starting to look like there isn't any such split, and, if there's not, many-worlds would be a consequence of everything just being quanta all the way down (or up, however you want to look at it). Elsewhere, on might look at the similarity between the singularity and black holes, which lead some to think that a universe may be the product of black holes. If you can, check out the writings of Max Tegmark and David Deutsch, the former on multiverse theories, in general, and the latter on many-worlds and especially the ability of quantum computing to test it.

I'm not going to outright claim that there is a multiverse, but I will claim that it's looking more and more likely in almost every arena of cosmology and QP. I'm not sure why, though, a multiverse would be an "extraordinary claim;" why is it any less extraordinary to assume we're the only universe? Lawrence Krauss, who is not a big fan of various multiverse theories, has stated that given what we know about quantum fluctuations, it was inevitable that a universe would form; so, if one, then why not many? He's also begrudgingly said he's been pushed into multiverse theories because of the growing evidence, though he, like you, is still rather skeptical.

[The Atheist]

... which lead some to think that a universe may be the product of black holes.

There'd be a kind of ironic justice in that - the universe is a Disney film.

(Good, coherent posting, by the way.)

[MorpheusSandman]

:lol: @ "universe is a Disney film"

Thanks. :)

[YesNo]

I'm not going to outright claim that there is a multiverse, but I will claim that it's looking more and more likely in almost every arena of cosmology and QP. I'm not sure why, though, a multiverse would be an "extraordinary claim;" why is it any less extraordinary to assume we're the only universe? Lawrence Krauss, who is not a big fan of various multiverse theories, has stated that given what we know about quantum fluctuations, it was inevitable that a universe would form; so, if one, then why not many? He's also begrudgingly said he's been pushed into multiverse theories because of the growing evidence, though he, like you, is still rather skeptical.

I think you are mixing up two very different multiverse ideas. The multiverse that Krauss is probably referring to, I would accept. The one that the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics promotes, I would not.

To tie this back to the OP, reason can be used to show the likely existence of reality that we do not have any way to experience directly. As one example, that reality could be a quantum object such as the Higgs boson, which was recently found. If it turned out that the Higgs boson could not be found where it was expected, the theory supporting quantum mechanics would have to be modified.

The multiverse that I would accept, and that I think Krauss refers to, is based on the mediocrity principle and the evidence for the Big Bang. The basic argument is if the Big Bang happened once, it happened many times since there is nothing special about our Big Bang. It is unlikely that ours was the only one. This would imply the existence of a multiverse of universes, totally disconnected that we have no other evidence for, that are like ours. Of course, ours might be the only one, but I personally accept that it is reasonable to assume it is not.

The MWI claims that the underlying quantum reality of our universe decoheres into alternate universes for every possible alternative. The reason this has been promoted is because the Schrodinger wave function implies Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which means that the universe at the quantum level is not deterministic. To save determinism, MWI claims that there are many worlds so every possibility is achieved. One of the things I've learned since the last time this topic was discussed on these forums, is that the mathematics underlying the wave function does not require the existence of many worlds. One world would do just fine. The reference for this would be Roland Omnes, Quantum Philosophy. That means that the wave function does force one to accept the uncertainty principle, but it does not force one to accept many worlds.

Reason can justify the existence of almost anything from Santa going down a chimney to alternate universes decohering from a common quantum reality to the existence of many universes that also started with a Big Bang to even the existence of weapons of mass destruction in a country we want to invade. Each of us has to make a choice whether we want to accept these consequences or not.

[MorpheusSandman]

I'm not mixing up multiverse ideas; I clearly stated there are multiple, often quite different, multiverse theories, and I was merely mentioning a few different ones. MWI can be considered a type of MV theory, though it is a very distinct one. Obviously, someone can agree with MWI without agreeing with other MV theories and vice-versa. There's nothing mutually inclusive or exclusive about these various theories. FWIW, Krauss seems to have come around to the multiverse after the observations of the CMBR that supported an Inflationary universe, and inflation predicts a multiverse.

I remember the last QP/MW thread in which you participated, and you demonstrated an obvious bias against MW from the very beginning, lacking even a rudimentary understanding of what was being discussed. Perhaps you've learned more since then, but you're still doing nothing to actually contradict MW. You claim that MW was proposed to "save determinism," but this simply isn't true; the fact that it saves determinism is only a side-effect of it solving non-locality, non-reality, and reconciling QP with GR. Of course QP doesn't require MW and can be worked into a single world interpretation, but then you're left with the same problems: non-locality, indeterminism, non-realism, and its incompatibility with GR. If you treat the wavefunction as an observer-independent object and assume it always follows the wave equations at all times, you end up with MWI. Obviously you can continue to assume that particles effect others at great distances, that the position or velocity can't be predicted, and that collapses only happen if there's an observer, but why in the world that makes more sense than assuming that the wavefunction is real and is simply acting in accordance with its inherent equations is beyond me.

[Ecurb]

“The whole is more than the sum of its parts” may be reasonable mathematically in light of Godel’s “Incompleteness theorem” that we have just now been discussing. This from the article in the New Yorker I linked:


In fact, as Gödel showed, a numerical formula could even be made to say something about itself. (Goldstein compares this to a play in which the characters are also actors in a play within the play; if the playwright is sufficiently clever, the lines the actors speak in the play within the play can be interpreted as having a “real life” meaning in the play proper.) Having painstakingly built this apparatus of mathematical self-reference, Gödel came up with an astonishing twist: he produced a formula that, while ostensibly saying something about numbers, also says, “I am not provable.” At first, this looks like a paradox, recalling as it does the proverbial Cretan who announces, “All Cretans are liars.” But Gödel’s self-referential formula comments on its provability, not on its truthfulness. Could it be lying? No, because if it were, that would mean it could be proved, which would make it true. So, in asserting that it cannot be proved, it has to be telling the truth. But the truth of this proposition can be seen only from outside the logical system. Inside the system, it is neither provable nor disprovable. The system, then, is incomplete. The conclusion—that no logical system can capture all the truths of mathematics—is known as the first incompleteness theorem. Gödel also proved that no logical system for mathematics could, by its own devices, be shown to be free from inconsistency, a result known as the second incompleteness theorem.

In other words, the “whole” (all of the parts) can only be seen as consistent or complete when viewed from outside the system.

However, in a more general way looking at the whole as more than the sum of its parts is more practical than philosophical. Reductionist explanations for complicated phenomena tends to be simplistic and naïve (in practice). That’s why the sciences of chemistry, biology and psychology exist. Although it is perhaps true that these sciences, given perfect knowledge, could be “reduced to” or “explained by” principles of physics, we aren’t there yet. If we study (for example) human culture, we can understand it in a more sophisticated way by creating “laws” of economics or of linguistics, rather than trying to “reduce” these cultural institutions to the laws of physics, or chemistry, or biology, or even psychology. It’s simply a practical matter – by looking at the whole as an abstraction (instead of as a sum of the parts), our understanding of it often improves

[cafolini]

When the modernist hears that the whole is more than the sum of the parts, he nods "yes" like a baboom because he/she feels that achieving a whole is some kind of marvel. When you say the same thing to a postmodernist, he thinks that a lot has been missed in determining the whole of the parts. He/she doesn't think that there is in fact a whole anywhere. She/he knows the whole is unachievable outside the imagination. She/he's coming from awareness of what can be done, not from idiotic wholism.

[YesNo]

I was reminded about the whole being more than the sum of its parts when in a meeting today a company partnership was described as a situation where 1 + 1 = 3.