Reflectorites
On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 23:57:49 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
CC>In one of Stephen Jones' posts, after I made the following
>remark,
>
> CC>Non-naturalism's functions are *not*
> cognitive.
> They are *psychological*. They provide
> thought-free pseudo-solutions to various kinds
> of intellectual problems, such as whether and
> how the Universe came to be, what life is and
> how it came to be, the meaning of life, etc.
>
>. . . Stephen said this:
SJ> Sounds to me like Chris is admitting that he has
> no good explanation for "how the Universe
> came to be, what life is and how it came to be,
> the meaning of life", so he is trying to declare it
> a "pseudo-"*problem*?
>
> If not, maybe Chris can tell us: 1. "how the
> Universe came to be"; 2. "what life is and how
> it came to be"; and 3. "the meaning of life"?
CC>Now, I'm not sure why Stephen has apparently inadvertently
Reading Chris' remark again, now I realise that I made a mistake, and read
"Non-naturalism's" as "Naturalism's". My apologies to Chris. Nevertheless,
I am still interested in hearing Chris's explanation of "life, the universe and
everything", to find out if the answer really is "42"! :-)
CC>taken up providing me with questions on some of my
>favorite topics, but I'm certainly not going to complain,
>especially since at least the first two of these questions are
>relevant to the issue of whether life fits naturalistic
>evolutionary theory.
Chris here has it backward. The question is not whether "life fits
naturalistic evolutionary theory" but whether "naturalistic evolutionary
theory" fits life!
But I regard this unconscious assumption of evolution's priority as possibly
a `Freudian slip' which illustrate how believers in "evolution" seem to think
of evolution as a God-like entity having an independent prior reality, rather
than simply a scientific description of natural processes.
CC>I'm throwing in my core answer to the
>meaning-of-life question as a freebie, and because it may
>help some readers find their way to a better life.
I appreciate Chris' `evangelistic' concern, but he is over 30 years too late
for me. I gave up on atheism's "better life" in 1967, and eventually found
a much "better life" in Christ! In fact if I had not given up on atheism's
"better life", I doubt that I would be alive today, since I was contemplating
suicide over how meaningless life was on atheistic premises.
CC>Regarding "How the Universe came to be":
>
>Let's distinguish between different modern meanings of
>"Universe":
>
>1. Everything there is, period, *except* for any supposed
> non-natural realm and God.
This is another example of Chris's inveterate question-begging which
presupposes what it purportedly sets out to prove.
As a Christian theist I do not accept the pejorative terms "supposed
nonnatural realm and God". I would be happy with the " Everything
physical there is, that is, except for any supernatural realm and God".
Or, the first part of the online Webster's dictionary definition: "universe ...
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated..."
(www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=universe), if by
"things" is understood physical things.
CC>2. What astronomers and such see as the Universe, a
> space-time some *few* tens of billions of light-years
> across with a bit of matter here and there in it.
I could be happy with this, although I would leave out everything after "the
Universe" as superfluous and less certain. No one actually *knows* that
the universe is "some *few* tens of billions of light-years across (although
I believe it probably is). Also the issue of the distribution and composition
of "matter" in the universe is currently under active debate.
CC>Now let's also distinguish what we may take as the Universe
>since the Big Bang (if any) from whatever ultimate material
>or "Dumb Stuff" that it is made of, or is otherwise somehow
>an expression of.
I find Chris' "Dumb Stuff" to be a strange term. I would prefer "basic
stuff".
CC>This distinction is important because it
>might be claimed that the Universe had a beginning (at the
>time of the Big Bang, for example) without requiring that
>whatever the Universe is ultimately made of has had a
>beginning.
This is starting to get complicated, and the possibility is that Chris and I
will not understand which "universe" we are each talking about. Currently
Chris is talking about at least three universes:
1. Everything physical that there is (which I will call U1)
2. The original basic stuff out of which our observable universe came
(which I will call U2).
3. Our observable universe, including its unobservable component sub-
atomic matter, energy, dark matter, black holes, and over event horizon
matter (which I will call collectively U3). Note that U3 could be quite
complex (e.g. branes, some parallelism, etc), but it is one universe.
Note that I only accept that U3 actually exists. I don't rule out there was a
U2, but I don't automatically accept there was, since U3 could have been
created ex nihilo by God. Also, even if there was a U2, it may not exist
now, or it might have all been taken up into U3.
Therefore, unless there is hard evidence of it, I don't accept that there is a
U1 that is greater than U3. That is U3=U1. Or, if there is still a U2, then
U3=U1+U2.
Finally, Christian theism would maintain, that no matter how large the
universe, or how many there are, ultimately God brought them into being
and maintains them in being.
CC>What this means is that there can easily be an eternally
>existing basic "stuff" that exhibits universes from time to
>time (perhaps an endless series of big bangs).
I don't agree about "easily". There are scientific and logical problems with
an actual physical infinity. For example, if matter was eternal and steadily
decaying into less energetic forms, according to the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, it would have already have all decayed by now (see
previous quote in another post by Montgomery).
Nor do I accept that such basic "stuff" would necessarily "exhibit universes
from time". That would have to be explained by a causal mechanism,
maybe quantum mechanics. But then the claim would have to be that
quantum mechanics was: 1) eternal; 2) could do this; and 3) would do this.
Neither do I accept there could be "an endless series of big bangs". After
the discovery of the Big Bang, this was once a hope that the universe
would eternally oscillate between big bangs and big crunches. But these
hopes have been dashed because: 1) there is not enough matter to halt the
universe's expansion; 2) the universe's expansion is actually accelerating; 3)
there is no known mechanism which can generate even one rebound; and 4)
even if a rebound was possible, because entropy would be increased at each
rebound, an "endless series of big bangs" would not be possible given the
known laws of physics:
"The second ramification of entropy lies in its effect on the bounce energy.
Not only is mechanical energy for contraction lost with each bounce, but so
is energy for rebounding. If a rubber ball is dropped from a height of three
feet above a hardwood floor, it will rebound but it will not come up three
feet. Some of the energy in the ball was radiated away through friction into
heat when the ball made contact with the floor. In fact, each time the ball
hits the floor more mechanical energy is converted into heat, and eventually
the ball stops bouncing. A ball with a high mechanical efficiency, for
example a volleyball blown up to a high air pressure, may bounce a dozen
times before it comes to a stop one floor. A ball with a low mechanical
efficiency, for example a very soft foam-rubber ball, may bounce only twice
before it stops. But the universe has far less mechanical efficiency than a
foam-rubber ball. In 1983 and 1984, American astrophysicists Marc Sher,
Alan Guth, and Sidney Bludman demonstrated that even if the universe
contained enough mass to halt its current expansion, any ultimate collapse
would end in a thud, not a bounce. In terms of mechanical energy, the
universe more closely resembles a wet lump of clay than a pumped up
volleyball. Sher and Guth confidently entitled their paper "The Impossibility
of a Bouncing Universe." (Ross H.N., "The Creator and the Cosmos,"
1994, p.60).
CC>My answer to "how the Universe came to be" *could* be:
>"Exactly the same way Stephen Jones says, *except* with a
>naturalistic cause.."
First, it is *not* "Exactly the same way" as I say. Chris above says that
matter is eternal, and I say that matter is *not* eternal.
Second, my position agrees with both the known facts of nature and logic,
whereas Chris' doesn't.
Third, Chris has not yet shown any "naturalistic cause" for his propositions
above. One of them "an endless series of big bangs" is not AFAIK
maintained by *any* cosmologist anymore.
Thus, if Stephen says, "God created the
>Universe out of nothing at all," I *could* say, "A
>naturalistically occurring species of being made the Universe
>out of nothing at all, or out of already-existing materials."
First, Chris would need to explain *what* or *who* exactly is this
"naturalistically occurring species" which or who "made the Universe out
of nothing at all"?
Second, Chris would need to explain *how* exactly this "naturalistically
occurring species" itself occurred?
Third, Chris would need to explain *how* exactly this "naturalistically
occurring species" "made the Universe out of nothing at all"?
Otherwise, Chris' claim seems to be just the Christian doctrine of creatio ex
nihilo, with a label "naturalistic" tacked on to the front of it, to give the
*illusion* it is saying something real.
CC>Note that this serves all the same legitimate *cognitive*
>purposes as does the God theory, but without the
>superfluous metaphysical baggage.
See above. It does not "serve all the same legitimate *cognitive* purposes"
because it is not yet even a coherent or ultimate explanation.
Unless it ends up being *identical* to the Christian God, it will continue to
have "superfluous metaphysical baggage" in explaining: 1. who or what this
"naturalistically occurring species of being" is; 2. where it came from; and
3. how it "made the Universe out of nothing at all"?
CC>It is *more*
>parsimonious than the God theory because it doesn't need
>the supernaturalism.
Until Chris explains the above he has not shown "it doesn't need
the supernaturalism"
CC>It is even, in principle, ultimately the
>kind of theory that might be empirically testable (for
>example, we might actually meet the beings who did it, learn
>about their history, and even learn how to create universes
>ourselves)..
If Chris is talking about "beings who did it" then he is not talking about
*ultimate* origins, and his explanation is not parsimonious: e.g. who or
what created the "beings"?
CC>I don't, for even a moment, think that this theory is true,
I don't blame Chris. It is such an absurd theory, that I doubt that *anyone*
could believe it to be true!
In the end, there is another existential test of an ultimate origins theory, and
that is human beings can actually believe it and live by it. One could always
maintain that one is the only real fact and the universe, including other
people, is an illusion, but one would still look both ways before crossing
the road!
If Chris himself does not even believe one of his own theories, then why
should anyone else? I can assure uncommitted lurkers that I believe my
theory and try to live by it.
CC>*but* it has a better chance of being true than *theism*
>does, as well as having a chance of being *scientific* (as
>well as not requiring cognitively unjustifiable metaphysical
>claims).
See above. Unless Chris can answer the obvious questions that I have
raised, his theory has *no* "chance of being true". Indeed, Chris
himself "for even a moment, think that this theory is true".
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Masterpiece of Engineering. Of all the organs of the body, few accomplish
as much in so little space as the ear. If an engineer were to duplicate its
function, he would have to compress into approximately one cubic inch (16
cm^3) a sound system that included an impedance matcher, a wide-range
mechanical analyzer, a mobile relay-and amplification unit, a multichannel
transducer to convert mechanical energy to electrical energy, a system to
maintain a delicate hydraulic balance and an internal two-way
communications system. Even if he could perform this miracle of
miniaturization, he probably could not hope to match the ear's
performance. It can set itself to hear the low throb of a foghorn at one end
of its range and the piercing wail of a jet engine at the other end. It can
make the fine distinction between the music played by the violin and the
viola sections of a symphony orchestra. It can reject the hubbub of a
cocktail party while picking out a single familiar voice. Even during sleep
the ear functions with incredible efficiency. Because the brain can interpret
and select signals passed to it by the ear, a man can sleep soundly through
noisy traffic and the blaring of a neighbor's television setand then awaken
promptly at the gentle urging of a chime alarm clock." (Stevens S.S. &
Warshofsky F., "Sound and Hearing," Life Science Library, Time-Life
Books: Alexandria VA, Revised Edition, p.38)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 09 2000 - 18:04:51 EDT