Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 409. (Read 901367 times)

As I said, I don't follow your ideas of random and non-random being just abstract models, therefore your method is not my method, wtf. I assume that the world exists independent of our existence (or our mind). You seem to be of the opposite opinion. So your idea may be correct in your perception of the world ("these things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory"), okay. But this in no case makes such a perception valid per se or the only one in a set, which may also include such where you (and your ideas) are flat-out wrong (or even don't exist at all, sorry)...

I guess you insist that your understanding of the world should be the only "legal" one?

Absolutely we should exclude the possibility as a relevant consideration to us.  Why should you voluntarily jump down a never-ending rabbit hole when you can simply step over it?

If we can't really know (anything existing outside the boundaries of mindful comprehension), we are left with what we can know, and what I do know.

Again, wrong question, and false dichotomy.  I provided a method by which we can form an understanding of how "true random" relates to "non-random."  Random and non-random are, again, simply abstract models that provide an explanation.  But, they fail to account for themselves, and thus carry only relative -- not objective -- descriptive power.  Self-determinism describes how "true random" and "non-random" are both interrelated and exclusionary, in an objective manner.  It provides a cause for the formation of "true random" and "non-random" models in general.  

"Random" and "non-random" are theoretic models...a product of mind.  These things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory.

Correction:  You are left to speculate.  I am correct.

But should we totally exclude such a possibility (that we may never know)? Since such a possibility is not equal to zero, how can it be totally irrelevant? And if we can't really know, what are we left with, and what is the value of other considerations then?

Wouldn't they be just hypothesizing in La-La Land, as you put it?

Again:


It's not a matter about excluding the possibility of a higher logic or something of the sort that exists beyond the human mind.  It's about recognizing that you are posing a consideration which we know will forever be impossible to answer aside from, "We don't know, we can't know, and we will never be able to know."  It's a totally irrelevant consideration to us.  I'm not saying one way or the other because our brand of logic specifically inhibits our ability to do so.  

We simply have to do the best we can, i.e. by identifying the logical limits of theorization, and relating those limits to Real phenomena in order to reach a tautological and fundamental understanding of Reality in terms of mind.  That's it.  That is the best we can do, and will forever be the best we can do.  You're hypothesizing in La-la Land.

It doesn't really matter, since, as I said before, we most likely won't be able to find out whether the world is true random or not. And that would be not because our logic could be at fail (but it would be enough to throw away any inconsistency of the sorts you are trying to find, if there is any at all), but because of a pure lack of knowledge, even entirely within our comprehension limits. We may never know whether we are dealing with a true randomness or a seeming one...

So we are left either to speculate or just believe (that's why atheists are miserable losers)

This in no way means that the thing described cannot exist beyond our abstract modelling of it. In fact, your reasons make no sense to me, it looks more like demagogy. I guess the next thing that you are going to say is that Reality exists only in our mind, or it exists only as long as we exist (which is essentially the same)...

No, I don't follow these ideas

Addressing the emboldened passages in order:

1) Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.  Your consideration, here, can be addressed in similar fashion to how metaphysicists consider hypothetical events occurring outside the scope of perception. "If a tree falls in the forest and it is not observed, did it actually fall?"  Bad question, as we totally lack any means of providing a definitive answer.

2)  This statement negates itself.  When you say, "Reality is not an abstract model," that in itself is an abstract model.  Even simply saying  'Reality exists' is an abstract model.

A theory/model is simply a description of something.  That's it.  For example, if you open a dictionary, every single definition is an abstract theory of the thing described. This is inescapable. You cannot talk about Reality's existence outside of the abstract models we describe.  Phrased another way, no model/theory of Reality means that we can't even affirm Reality exists.  The existence of Reality is totally dependent upon a theory of it; no theory --> no Reality (that we can affirm or is of any relevance to us).

Edit:  When I say that theories/models are simply a description of something, I would clarify this by further noting that it is precisely due to theories/models that Reality and its constituents are defined.  In the lack of a theory/model, there is no definition -- literally.  Reality gains its definition in a literal sense via theories/models, and the mechanism by which this occurs is a metrical one.  That is, theories/models employ metrics, i.e. abstract scales of measurement, to define Reality.  This starts getting into the reasons why I believe in Intelligent Design, for without a mind to employ metrics with which to define Reality, Reality entirely lacks any definition, including the fundamental definition of "existence."  "Existence" is born of a simple difference metric, i.e. "1 vs. 0," or "yes, existence vs. no, not-existence."

Edit 2:  To exemplify my first edit, consider space.  If a metric is employed which can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If instead a metric is employed which cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

I am singularly curious whether you understand that your logic (irresistibly leading to conclusions of "zero determinate value" sorts), or any logic known to us for that matter (which we think universally applicable), is also a product of mind, and, as any such product, can potentially be falsified (or expanded) from beyond human mind. In other words, it is not given that there is only one, unique logic, or our logic is particularly true (complete). Thereby, it may be you who is shooting himself in the foot...

But it doesn't actually matter here at all, since reality is not an abstract model (a product of mind), so it is in no way tied by our reasoning limitations (which we are obviously not able to grasp, let alone overcome)

But such a perspective evokes self-contradicition, for if your argument exists as an abstract model, then you must conclude that it, too, is indeterminate, and thus provides absolutely zero determinate value upon anything that you would describe as indeterminate.  You shoot yourself in the foot by precluding any possibility of objectively describing anything.  Your indeterminate model would be mutually exclusive from anything you attempt to squeeze into its scope.  And that's aside from the more simple fact that the word "indeterminism" axiomatically implies you can't use it as a determinate cause for something else.

But, in general you're still missing the point.  A model or theory of something, such as an indeterministic one or any other, is self-apparently an abstract construct.  It is a construct of your mind, as is the nature of any theory or model.  You fail to consider any basis by which you can even arrive at such a model, which is unfortunate.  You talk like a Positivist, as if there is some concrete truth of Reality independent of our minds and the models/theories we construct therefrom, and if we only had more knowledge we could arrive at a definitive conclusion -- of what kind, I don't know, and perhaps you could explain to me what, exactly, is the kind of knowledge we would need that would enable us to arrive at some definitive conclusion.  In my previous post, I described the kind of knowledge needed to arrive at such a definitive conclusion, and also the process by which we could utilize this knowledge to construct a viable model.

Any model/theory is constructed out of a relationship of mind to reality, and so your consideration of indeterminism as an viable model must necessarily be able to also explain how you are able to construct an indeterminate model to begin with.  You're putting the cart before the horse, so-to-speak, by effectively taking the abstract rules of theorization for granted.  Consequently, your indeterminate model, which in your words would serve as explanation for why things exist at all, fails to include the existence of itself, thereby rendering it self-inconsistent and invalid.

Personally, I am in favor of indeterminism, since it can potentially explain why something exists at all. Neither determinism nor your idea of it can explain this rationally. Pure determinism gets lost in an infinite recursion, your self-determinism just makes no sense (at least, to me), since it actually evades providing an answer through tautology (logic trickery) while in fact being the same endless (and meaningless) recursion...

In short, I don't particularly care which breed of determinism you stick to

If by "endless" you mean "closed," then okay. (You are correct that I deployed tautology.  Points for that.)

Determinism: x ... A --> B --> C --> D ...   (where x = some unknown primary cause)

There is no unknown primary cause in self-determinism.  I think of "endless" and "infinite regression" as a line extending infinitely, not a closed loop, and not synonymous with "endless process" or something similar.  In any case, we can skip these semantics.

What determinism does not explain is how mind factors into theory-making.  If we have an explanatory model, great, but if we want the model to be truly comprehensive, then it also must account for and explain itself.  Models and theories, no matter what kind (e.g. even scientific ones, etc.) contain purely abstract elements of the mind which determine the nature of models and theories themselves.  So, if it is these purely abstract elements that enable and catalyze theory-making, and if these theories are what help us ultimately explain the Reality we inhabit, then we might as well just look to these abstract elements and see what they might tell us about Reality all by themselves.  They are the tools with which we create these mental constructs (i.e. theories/models), and so we should see how they allow us to gain an understanding of Reality in terms of mind.

I'd point out a third time that logic is self-referential.  It says, "Sound logic is logical because sound logic says so," and accordingly, any logical theories/models derived therefrom are simply logical constructs which refer back to theoretical properties of logical self-referentce.  This self-referential property lends itself to a logical 'boundary,' or a limit of logic that acts as a core from which we can identify limits of theorization.  If we know that a limit of theorization exists, and what it is, then we can extract categorical relationships between this thoeretical limit and real objects/events in order to provide a fundamental explanation of them in terms of the mind, and in terms of theoretical self-reference.

For example, knowing that deterministic and indeterministic explanations exist and that we are capable of forming theories/models in these contexts, we can relate each of these distinct contexts back to the self-referential properties from which they necessarily arise, and instead describe them in the context of self-reference itself.

And, "so what?"  Well, for starters this eliminates infinite regression precisely because any attempt to falsify it would necessarily challenge self-reference itself and evoke self-inconsistency, thereby serving to reinforce the original model.

So I guessed right. You deployed what is known as tautology at a new level ("it accounts for itself since it accounts for itself", A = A, and all that nonsense). But you still escaped to convincingly explain how the reality came to be, that is who started that "feedback loop". Okay, no one did this, and how is that different from "deterministic infinite regression" then? Substitute loop for regression and what did it actually change? Nothing, since your endless loop is not much better than an endless regression. Your self-reinforcing "mechanism" of causation is a chimera, and I could just as well say that the Primary Cause causes itself in a tight loop (with the reality existing somewhere within that loop, e.g. being a transfer mechanism), and so what?

Alas, I won't buy this (as pretending to be substantially different from good ol' determinism)

I discussed falsifiability.  But I'll explain it further.

There are different kinds of falsifiability.  One kind is the scientific kind.  Another is the logical kind (of which the scientific kind is a mere derivative).

A logical model can be falsified on two levels.  On a lower level, it can be falsified if new information is discovered that should necessarily be explained by the model (i.e. the information falls within the scope of the model) but isn't.  This renders the model internally inconsistent and thus intrinsically invalid.  On a higher level, it can be falsified if a greater, more comprehensive model of greater scope not only accounts for and explains all information contained by the original model, but also accounts for and explains information which falls outside the scope of the original model.  This renders the model externally inconsistent and thus extrinsically invalid.

The *ideal* model is one that can never be falsified.  How would this work?  Well, suppose you have a model about which any attempt to falsify it only serves to reinforce it.

Consider the following statement:  "Absolute truth exists."  Any attempt to falsify this statement actually reinforces it.  For example, if we then consider the statement "absolute truth does not exist," it is akin to saying "it is the absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist," and thus the statement renders itself contradictory and invalid.  If one were to try to argue that this latter statement is not implied by the former -- perhaps by suggesting that all truth is relative -- then "it is the relative truth that absolute truth does not exist" carries no objective weight whatsoever, and therefore we cannot ascribe any objective validity to it.

Regarding your 2nd statement, yes it does.  Consider again the truism, "Sound logic is soundly logical because sound logic says so."   So, what causes logic to be logical?  Logic does.  But, what causes logic to be logically capable of ascribing sound logic as logical?  Again, logic does.  It is its own primary cause.  Logic is a self-contained system, and thus relies only upon the logical rules of self-containment to be logical.  Similarly, Reality is its own primary cause.  There is nothing real enough which could be a real primary cause for Reality other than Reality itself.  If the primary cause is Real, then it is axiomatically self-contained within the Real set.

Self-determinism is different from "vanilla" determinism in that it closes the causal loop as opposed to leaving it open and incomplete.  An infinite regression does not result from  a closed loop.  Consider, for example, a computer feedback loop in which individual proxies relay informational feedback to a central syntax controller.  The controller receives this feedback, processes it according to a utility function, and transmits it back again to the proxies, and the cyclical process continues.  This is a mechanical type of self-determinism.

So, why doesn't a self-determined Reality require an external primary cause in the same way that a computer feedback loop, self-deterministic as it may be, requires a computer programmer?  The answer lies mostly in the question.

If you ask, "So...what caused Reality's self-configuration?", the question itself can possibly throw you off.  Generally, most people would interpret this in a time-based fashion, assuming that there must be a cause that must occur before its effect.  We know from Einstein that this is a topological understanding of causality, and a real understanding of causality is one that involves superposition.

Edit:  The mechanism by which Reality primarily causes itself is perception.  That is, real perceivers perceive and affirm the existence of Reality; Reality is self-referential.  This is self-apparent, and we can observe this mechanism in action via every moment of our experience.  We are constituents of that mechanism.  Some parts of Reality (e.g. us) perceive and affirm the existence of other parts of Reality.  Just as logic is self-referential, so is Reality.

No need to be sorry. Just don't forget about falsifiability, quantum mechanics or no quantum mechanics


This still doesn't explain how it came to be as it happens to be. Unless and until you manage to convincingly explain that point somehow (that of the Primary Cause), I don't see much of a difference between your breed of determinism and plain vanilla determinism...

In short, I don't understand how it is different

If you admittedly lack the knowledge to arrive at a definite conclusion...


...then maybe you shouldn't have an expectation of what the explanation ought to be, and then try to fit a square peg into a round hole when you get one.

Edit:  What don't you generally understand about self-determinism after:


?

And, in fact, it shouldn't, since then it couldn't explain what is known in determinism as the Primary Cause. But, as I said before and say again, since indeterminism doesn't exclude anything, it necessarily doesn't exclude causality. So, in a sense, it may give rise to determinism, and reality seems to be confirming just that


You still didn't explain what is self-determinism per se and how it is different from "pure" determinism, apart from saying that "it accounts for itself and that which it contains" and "provides a consistent explanation of how determinism and indeterminism are interrelated" without actually telling how they are interrelated and providing "a consistent explanation"...

I am afraid, this is not what anyone would expect as an "explanation". Wtf?

I don't know what you mean by "deterministic infinite regression". I guess, you imply a chain of infinite causes where each cause is an effect of the previous cause and so on. Yes, this is what determinism implies (as an option here discussed), and I acknowledge it as such. And so what?

Further on, I don't understand what you mean by me "making the determinate assumption that there is some unknown causal agent 'x' which determines that which we don't comprehensively understand" and how that contradicts "the idea that causal agent 'x' can be a source of prime causation at all". What is causal agent 'x', or, rather, what actually were you going to say?

Keep it simple. It pretty much looks like a meaningless blue streak to me, and, wtf, it may well be one


I don't understand your point. And it is in your context that I have "to choose between a determinate or indeterminate explanation". So, I guess, you are ascribing to me what I neither said nor meant...

As to me, you are pretty much trying to conceal the absence of thought behind some sophisticated wording

But the context in which you had originally discussed determinism is one of infinite regression, and the context in which you had originally discussed determinism and indeterminism is one of mutual exclusion:


Thus, your own explanation is self-inconsistent.  First, it is inconsistent in that you acknowledge the issue of deterministic infinite regression, then make the determinate assumption that there is some unknown causal agent 'x' which determines that which we don't comprehensively understand, by virtue of "no 'true' randomness" (thus contradicting the idea that causal agent 'x' can be a source of prime causation at all).

Second, it is inconsistent in that you acknowledge you must choose between a determinate or indeterminate explanation (and then you do so, choosing a determinate one), and then switch the context of your argument to one in which it should be possible to explain, at least in part, deterministic events in relation to indeterminate ones (else they would remain treated as mutually exclusive).

In other words, the inconsistency arises from a shift in argumentative context.  A self-determinate model homogenizes these contexts such that they can be explained relatively in terms of each other, and absolutely in terms of the model as a whole.  That is, it provides a means of describing determinism and indetermism as both mutually-exclusive and not mutually-exclusive simultaneously.  As a result, there is no need for a shift in argumentative context.

Your objection is precluded by:


...lending to infinite regression (i.e. what caused this deterministic relationship, or the deterministic process itself?).


...lending to mutual exclusion (i.e. indeterminism cannot in any way account for causality)


...lending to resolution (i.e. by providing a consistent explanation of how determinism and indeterminism are interrelated and exclusionary in a single, descriptive understanding).

I don't understand what all of that means. I'd rather say that you are trying to confuse matters but for the benefit of doubt


Most likely, that incompleteness exists only in your mind. In any case, I don't see any incompleteness apart from the incompleteness of our knowledge as such. But, I guess, this is not relevant and doesn't necessitate a third option. But since the incompleteness of our knowledge is a given, you can't possibly even prove that your incompleteness (that of determinism and indeterminism) is a "true" one (and not due to a lack of knowledge)... Remember about falsifiability?


To be honest, this is bullshit, a-la "self-determinism accounts for itself since it accounts for itself" (A ⇒ A). What is self-determinism beside just saying that it "accounts for itself and that which it contains"? How does it account for itself and that which it contains? What does it contain actually? And why doesn't indeterminism account for itself when it ultimately and legitimately says that all is possible (at zero time, when there is no time or anything else yet)?