"You can only find the truth with logic when you have already found it without logic." Exactly. Assuming that by "the truth" we mean one truth, two truths, three truths ... not a totality, which must remain God's.
"You can only find the truth with logic when you have already found it without logic." Exactly. Assuming that by "the truth" we mean one truth, two truths, three truths ... not a totality, which must remain God's.
If you can't find the truth with logic, then it is not truth.
Truth (surely) is true however one discovers it (maybe, postmodernists might disagree). Chesterton's point (I think) is that logic allows us to do no more than restate our premises in different terms. It's a valuable tool, but (as anyone who has read Lewis Carrol's logic puzzles knows) even valid deductions are only as "true" as the premises from which they are deduced. Our knowledge of the world advances through induction more than through deduction.Originally Posted by PeterL
Regardless of the form that it takes, logical reasoning based on valid, demonstrable premises are necessary to find truth, unless one uses the phrase "religious truth". "Religious truth" need not be based on anything more than an idle comment that makes its way into a religious scripture.
I started this thread in the Religous Literature category, because there probably is more religious thought relating to free will than there is philosophical literature.
Where do you get the "valid, demonstrable premises"? If you have those, logic can restate them in enlightening ways, but logic cannot give you the valid, demonstrable premises in the first place (as Chesterton pointed out).
Also, what is a "valid" premise? Here's a link to a brief discussion: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html. See question 10 (and its answer) for the refutation of your statement, "If you can't find the truth with logic, then it is not truth."
Any induction is ultimately a deduction because the lab cannot and will never present all possible cases. Inductive reasoning is the most fraudulent form of reasoning. Multiple choice is the simplest form of fraud.
The premises need to be based on observation.
I think that you are mistaken.Also, what is a "valid" premise? Here's a link to a brief discussion: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html. See question 10 (and its answer) for the refutation of your statement, "If you can't find the truth with logic, then it is not truth."
Sometimes the premises are formulations of one's preferred metaphysics such as Euclid's axioms.
Sometimes the premises contain at least one that comes from an opponent's metaphysics. The goal here is to assume the opponent's premise is true and then generate a contradiction. If the argument is valid, then the premise must be false since true premises in a valid argument cannot lead to a false conclusion.
I see Cioran setting up a premise that God has all knowledge and power. He assumes God can know a complete state of our universe that quantum mechanics claims does not exist. From there he thinks he can conclude that free will does not exist or God does not exist. This then justifies Cioran's own metaphysics by contradicting the metaphysics that some theists might actually have.
The problem with such approaches is that the false premise is not often correctly formulated so all one does is help the opponents reformulate their metaphysics to avoid the issue.
In this particular case, there is no God that knows the current state of the universe since if some God knew that is would "collapse the wave function" and the double slit experiment with a single electron going through the slit would generate a typical random pattern not the wave-like pattern that is actually seen.
This is another reason why the Many Worlds interpretation is also false. Not only can no God know the current state of our universe, nor can any set of alternate universes know it. If they did the wave function would collapse and we would no longer see a wave-like pattern in the double slit experiment. Since we do see that wave pattern, we can conclude that the Many Worlds interpretation along with the assumption that any God knows a deterministic state of our universe is false.
What this all means is that choice to some degree is possible in our universe. (And that helps support the metaphysics that I prefer.)
Last edited by YesNo; 02-26-2013 at 12:27 PM.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Premises (facts) that are based on observation are the foundation of knowledge, and deductive logic is merely the superstructure. Believing our own eyes (however) is based on inductive reasoning, not deductive (logical) reasoning. We believe our own eyes because they do not (generally) deceive us, based on our experience.
You brought up several good points here, but you thoroughly mixed those with assertions of opinions. But if the god that you assume that Cioran is claiming exists does actually exist, then there is no free will. While the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful god cannot be proven, the non-existence of such a god cannot be proven either.Sometimes the premises are formulations of one's preferred metaphysics such as Euclid's axioms.
Sometimes the premises contain at least one that comes from an opponent's metaphysics. The goal here is to assume the opponent's premise is true and then generate a contradiction. If the argument is valid, then the premise must be false since true premises in a valid argument cannot lead to a false conclusion.
I see Cioran setting up a premise that God has all knowledge and power. He assumes God can know a complete state of our universe that quantum mechanics claims does not exist. From there he thinks he can conclude that free will does not exist or God does not exist. This then justifies Cioran's own metaphysics by contradicting the metaphysics that some theists might actually have.
The problem with such approaches is that the false premise is not often correctly formulated so all one does is help the opponents reformulate their metaphysics to avoid the issue.
In this particular case, there is no God that knows the current state of the universe since if some God knew that is would "collapse the wave function" and the double slit experiment with a single electron going through the slit would generate a typical random pattern not the wave-like pattern that is actually seen.
This is another reason why the Many Worlds interpretation is also false. Not only can no God know the current state of our universe, nor can any set of alternate universes know it. If they did the wave function would collapse and we would no longer see a wave-like pattern in the double slit experiment. Since we do see that wave pattern, we can conclude that the Many Worlds interpretation along with the assumption that any God knows a deterministic state of our universe is false.
What this all means is that choice to some degree is possible in our universe. (And that helps support the metaphysics that I prefer.
The double slit diffraction argument that you cite as proof the the Many Worlds interpretation is false does not prove anything. And you are asserting, without proof, that that god does not exist.
I am not claiming that an all-powerful, all-knowing god does exist, but asserting that that god does not exist is as pointles and unprovable as claiming that it does exist.
Apparently you prefer a universe in which there is uncertainty, unpredictabliity. That's fine, and I would prefer a universe in which there is free will in some matters, but it appears that free will probably is extremely restricted.
Yes, we have to start somewhere, and observations are the best base that we have.
While for other animals observation forms the sole foundation of knowledge, for us humans culture is an equally important foundation. Not only do we observe, but we are also educated about the observations of others. IN addition, our observations are filtered through the lens of cultural paradigms (if nothing else, they are affected by our use of language to describe and remember them).
Let's face facts: religious people believe in God for the same reason you and I believe in the Battle of Cannae -- we have been told by those whom we trust that either God exists or the Battle of Cannae occured. Here's Emily Dickenson's take:
I NEVER saw a moor,
I never saw the sea;
Yet know I how the heather looks,
And what a wave must be.
I never spoke with God, 5
Nor visited in heaven;
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the chart were given.
Yes, it is sad, but a single human can never experience or observe everything. I just hope that the things that I have gotten from others have not been too badly distorted, but my experience is that the lens of culture distorts everything.
I agree that if Cioran's God exists, there is no free will. However, such a God cannot exist if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is true. So there is no worry. Twenty-first century science eliminates that God from consideration. We don't need to consider metaphysics.
I think it does show that at least that description of the Many Worlds interpretation is false. It is now up to those supporting the Many Worlds interpretation to present a way for Many Worlds to not "collapse the wave function" and generate what they must view as an "illusion" when we see the wave pattern in a double slit experiment.
Actually what I provided was a proof that any Many Worlds interpretation or any God able to collapse the wave function does not exist. That doesn't mean that the God most theists worship does not exist. Nor does that mean their God is not omnipotent nor omniscient. Their God tolerates free will. There is nothing stopping that God from existing.
I think one can use reason to find out a lot about whatever exists both within and without our universe.
Regarding uncertainty, that is what the standard model of quantum mechanics tells us we have. I have to take that as evidence. My metaphysics is a preference for what would allow the "perennial philosophy" or the "sanatana dharma" to be possible. I would need for such a universe to have some free will.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
"If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is true." I think that it is more likely that science will show that Heisenberg was mistaken, but only time will tell. Please don't take that to mean that I think that there is an infinite god; i have douts about uncertainty, but I also wonder how much of it leaks into the macro world.
And there is no reason why the wave function would not collapse in that while it would in other situations., As with so many things, it is a matter of what one is looking for. - To a man with a hammer... To apparatus for looking at waves...I think it does show that at least that description of the Many Worlds interpretation is false. It is now up to those supporting the Many Worlds interpretation to present a way for Many Worlds to not "collapse the wave function" and generate what they must view as an "illusion" when we see the wave pattern in a double slit experiment.
Actually what I provided was a proof that any Many Worlds interpretation or any God able to collapse the wave function does not exist. That doesn't mean that the God most theists worship does not exist. Nor does that mean their God is not omnipotent nor omniscient. Their God tolerates free will. There is nothing stopping that God from existing.
I don't disagree, but one must start with observations.I think one can use reason to find out a lot about whatever exists both within and without our universe.
That is your preference. I would also prefer that there be free will, but the more I look at itthe less free will I see.Regarding uncertainty, that is what the standard model of quantum mechanics tells us we have. I have to take that as evidence. My metaphysics is a preference for what would allow the "perennial philosophy" or the "sanatana dharma" to be possible. I would need for such a universe to have some free will.
Reply With Quote
