Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <c5.2d32f70.25fecf4b@aol.com>:
>
> Ted:
> > What do you mean by non-definable? I know many people
> > who argue that "free will", "creativity" and "God"
> > can be well-defined.
>
> Bertvan:
> Hi Ted. Does science claim to define them? Does Science admit
> the possibility that "free will", "creativity" or "God" are a
> part of the real world of molecules, atoms and physical forces?
> Does materialistic science admit the possibility that "free
> will", "creativity" or "God" might have any power to interact
> with the real world of molecules, atoms or physical forces ? I
> was under the impression that since Descartes, science has
> declared them to occupy two different realms, with no possible
> interaction between the two. I can't ask you to speak for "science",
> but how do you think 20th century science, or more specifically
> Neo Darwinist biology, would generally answer?
Answers must depend on definitions. The only coherent definition
of "free will" I can think of means that the human will is
not constrained by other humans. This is quite compatible with
materialistic science. To argue that the human will is not
constrained by anything is not consistent with what we think or
feel.
One way to define "creativity" is the process of arriving at
patterns of thought or expression that have not existed in
the universe before. This is also quite compatible with
materialistic science.
God, if an entity having real affects on matter and energy, is
within the realm of science. God, if an entity outside the
universe having no affect on the universe, is outside the realm
of science as long as science has no hope of discerning things
outside the universe. God, if an entity outside the universe
but affecting the universe, will be either interpreted as a law
of the universe -- if his actions are consistent -- or as a
chaotic effect -- in which case uniformitarian assumptions will
begin to break down.
> Bertvan
> >> Non materialists are skeptical of materialistic confidence that
> >>all of nature will eventually be explained by science.
>
> Ted:
> > If they have a reason for this skepticism, that reason can be
> >examined with the tools of science. In principle, I can think
> >of no way to know anything with confidence without being able
> >to verify it in ways approaching the scientific method.
>
> Bertvan:
> Are you saying "the tools of science" can examine all questions?
> Even those they have declared to be "outside the realm of
> science"?
I believe so. Do you have an example in mind that we can
test?
> I agree that materialists "know a lot of things with
> confidence". The list of things we agnostics "know with
> confidence" is much smaller. We would argue what we know is
> more significant, but admittedly covers less ground.
>
> Bertvan:
> >> Apparently, most materialists believe the universe is the result
> >> of accidental, impersonal processes, without plan, purpose,
> >> meaning or design. Non materialists entertain the possibility
> >> of design and teleology.
>
> Ted:
> > Maybe, maybe not, depending on what you mean by design.
> > Did Thor create the Earth? Not likely.
>
> Bertvan:
> It is generally the agnostic position that humans are incapable
> of understanding whatever created life, the Earth or the universe.
> That doesn't prevent us from acknowledging it was apparently
> created (or sprang spontaneously into existence) and the evidence
> convinces me that creation was the result of a rational design.
> A rational design might well include teleology.
Can creation be distinguished from non-creation? If not,
then it would seem teleology is a presupposition, not an
inference.
> Bertvan:
> >> Materialism assumes the "laws of nature" are absolute. Non
> >> materialism is comfortable with the probabilistic nature of
> >> quantum physics.
>
> Ted:
> >Materialists are perfectly comfortable with quantum physics.
> >I don't know what you mean, here.
>
> Bertvan:
> Have you really reconciled Bells Theorem with a separation of
> the material and the spiritual into two different realms?
No, because that isn't required, to my knowledge. Are you
saying that Bell's Theorem supports the supernatural?
> Bertvan:
> > > Non materialists might regard mathematical formulas as crude
> >> way to describe reality, while a materialist would consider them
> >> precise.
>
> Ted:
> > Depends on what you mean by "describing reality". I know of no
> > single mathematical formula that describes reality.
>
> Bertvan:
> Do you believe the laws of nature are absolute, and apparent
> mathematical deviations are due to our imprecise measurements?
> What if our measurements are pretty good, and it is the laws of
> nature that are imprecise? Especially when dealing with life.
I'm not sure what you mean by laws of nature. For example,
"objects attract" appears to be a law now, but may not have
applied in the very early stages of the universe.
If deviations are consistently observed in any "law of nature",
the inescapable conclusion is that the law is not absolute,
and this does not seem to violate any materialistic assumption
I'm aware of.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 21:08:21 EST