tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3334758899367738775..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Supervenience on the hands of an angry GodEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9087835037994932652017-03-21T21:00:11.859-07:002017-03-21T21:00:11.859-07:00Dianelos,
Sanity requires affirmation of reality o...Dianelos,<br />Sanity requires affirmation of reality of objects. And this affirmation is prior to ANY reasoning or arguments. See for instance Stanley Jaki's Means to Message:<br /><br />"Every philosophy is a message. For conveying that message there has to be a tangible means, such as a book. Therefore, for the sake of a minimum of consistency, the philosopher's message or system should account in full for the reality of the means.This new book by Stanley Jaki aims at unfolding the consequences of this minimum for the main topics of philosophy. The necessary first topic is the objective reality of the means, or in general "objects". Any neglect of this will result, Jaki argues, in philosophical sleights of hand that endlessly breed one another."<br /><br />Amazon.com<br /><br />That idealism fails to do. Idealism requires God to perceive objects but existence of God itself can not be demonstrated in idealism. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66967824712735166882017-03-21T00:57:55.764-07:002017-03-21T00:57:55.764-07:00@ Gyan,
”Are computers real?”
Of course. We bui...@ Gyan, <br /><br /><i>”Are computers real?”</i><br /><br />Of course. We build them, and they produce some very useful work for us. And even surprise us. <br /><br /><i>”If one doubts the reality of apples, one has no right to ANY inference of physics.”</i><br /><br />As I explained in the previous comment *nobody* doubts the reality of apples. The question at hand is whether apples are real in the sense physical realists imagine.<br /><br />As for physics, I have already pointed out that if we found out for a fact that we live in a computer simulation then no one iota would have to change in all of the books of physics. Ergo, physics has nothing whatsoever to do with physical realism; physics doesn't in the very least depend on physical realism being true. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79348147134970513692017-03-21T00:52:08.536-07:002017-03-21T00:52:08.536-07:00@ Tony,
”I will bet you that when you get to the ...@ Tony,<br /><br /><i>”I will bet you that when you get to the afterlife, you will find that "apples are real objects" turns out to have been a far, far more sensible proposition to work with (and far more true) than "we live in a computer simulation."”</i><br /><br />I already believe that apples are real objects. Nobody in their right mind entertains the slightest doubt about that. <br /><br />The question at hand is whether apples are real in the sense that physical realists believe. I find that reason moves us away from that belief. The arguments given for that belief appear to be very weak, and the conceptual problems of that belief multiply. And multiply in part because of the discoveries of the physical sciences, which looks really bad. <br /><br />Now take theism. The human condition would be exactly the same if God had made physical objects according to how idealists understand it and not according to how physical realists understand it. Why should God go the roundabout way and create physical objects as a different substance? The only argument I can imagine is Augustine's, namely that God delights in the richness of creation. But that richness is present on idealism too, since to delight entails experience. <br /><br />Therefore especially on theism I see no grounds for physical realism. If you know of any theistic argument for physical realism I'd like you to point me towards it. <br /><br />Incidentally, right now I am listening to some very interesting discussions that took place at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUWMvhZyqoo&list=PLajs77Y9ipluZ2zlrC4Ru9LGfEWcPrGm-" rel="nofollow">a recent colloquium at the Notre Dame Institute of Advanced Study on “Mind, Soul, and World”</a>. I was surprised to hear one of the specialists there claim that the best way to interpret Thomistic metaphysics is within the idealist framework. I wonder what Feser would say about this idea :-)<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77619067567405306362017-03-20T21:02:45.186-07:002017-03-20T21:02:45.186-07:00Dianelos,
The scientific instruments that ground p...Dianelos,<br />The scientific instruments that ground physics and also ground the proposition "we live in a computer simulation" --are these instruments real?<br />Are computers real?<br />If one doubts the reality of apples, one has no right to ANY inference of physics.Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51861251506719708912017-03-20T12:53:22.537-07:002017-03-20T12:53:22.537-07:00Not to mention that some of the smartest philosoph...<i>Not to mention that some of the smartest philosophers around today (Bostrom, Chalmers) figure it's not at all improbable that we live in a computer simulation, in which case apples are not physically real. </i> <br /><br />Tell you what: I will bet you that when you get to the afterlife, you will find that "apples are real objects" turns out to have been a far, far more sensible proposition to work with (and far more true) than "we live in a computer simulation." Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66182711122867758092017-03-20T01:01:03.934-07:002017-03-20T01:01:03.934-07:00@ Gyan
"It is not a sane position"
:-)...@ Gyan<br /><br /><i>"It is not a sane position"</i><br /><br />:-) Well tell that to some of the greatest philosophers of the West from Plato to Plotinus to Berkeley (never mind virtually the entirety of Eastern thought). Not to mention that some of the smartest philosophers around today (Bostrom, Chalmers) figure it's not at all improbable that we live in a computer simulation, in which case apples are not physically real. Not to mention <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R19WHMFBHGRXO6" rel="nofollow"> some of the founders of QM</a> also argued that our notions of physical reality are far off the mark.<br /><br />That physical realists feel in their bones that to doubt the reality of apples (the way they imagine it) is absurd, doesn't make it so. If anything I find it absurd to hang on with much confidence on physical realism when one is aware of the plethora of of conceptual difficulties it suffers from and which modern physical science has only multiplied (surely an unexpected development). As far as I can see physical realism has nothing more going for it than the argument that all 3-year olds believe in it. And that we do in fact possess a brain that makes it easier to navigate our daily lives imagining that our environment is physically real. <br /><br /><i>”Perception of objects is far more than pattern-matching. See his case history of The Man who mistook his wife for an hat.”</i><br /><br />Sounds interesting, thanks, I'll have a look.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83759567138985448512017-03-19T21:55:37.227-07:002017-03-19T21:55:37.227-07:00Dianelos,
" your brain discovers in the thous...Dianelos,<br />" your brain discovers in the thousands of dot-like pieces of light the pattern it had learned as an infant is the pattern of the universal apple."<br /><br />The late neurologist Oliver Sacks would have disagreed. Perception of objects is far more than pattern-matching. See his case history of The Man who mistook his wife for an hat. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91018409468350170382017-03-19T21:12:02.189-07:002017-03-19T21:12:02.189-07:00Dianelos,
"Thus we don't really know whet...Dianelos,<br />"Thus we don't really know whether apples are real objects in the first place"<br /><br />It is not a sane position.Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72496898729684297542017-03-17T10:14:42.783-07:002017-03-17T10:14:42.783-07:00P.S. I include in "dogma" only what the ...P.S. I include in "dogma" only what the Catholic Church does. Nothing else. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34312736085910350712017-03-17T09:05:14.960-07:002017-03-17T09:05:14.960-07:00In general when one talks about humans, one means ...<i>In general when one talks about humans, one means humans in our condition, and thus neither the first and last Adam, nor humans in heaven, and so on. </i> <br /><br />In a casual conversation in a pub, we might mean that. In a careful discussion in philosophy or theology, saying "the end of human life" without qualifying it is to be taken as unqualified. Which is what I did. <br /><br />In any case, "the end of human life" taken generally - as in "in general" - includes both those who have fallen and those who have not: you have been unable to articulate what you mean because you have no conception of man APART from our condition after sin entered the world. <br /><br /><i>I never understood this view. For me to be in a fallen state means to be in such a state that one will perhaps choose to sin. That's what distinguishes the state of persons in heaven: they won't. <br /><br />Anyway the whole story in Genesis does not make much sense. The very word “Fall” suggests a failure in God's purpose in creation, which is an absurdity.</i> <br /><br />Yes, I get that you don't understand the Bible nor Christianity. <br /><br /><i>The very early theologians of Genesis tried to explain how despite God's perfection sin entered the world, or in other words tried to produce a theodicy. And didn't quite succeed</i> <br /><br />I am so glad that you clarified that you think St. Paul's understanding of Genesis is empty. <i>But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. </i> <br /><br /><i>A better suggestion about how sin entered creation (which is completely different but strangely close to the Genesis text)...Adam was created neither in a fallen nor in a perfected state, but rather in a morally vacuous state such as animals enjoy, namely not to know about good and evil and therefore not to be subject to sin. [Nor to be human. Tony]...Thus sin entered the world by free choice and for a good end,</i> <br /><br />So, in your view it is an unsuccessful theodicy to say that sin entered the world through Adam's sinful act against God's will, though God's (higher order) will would be tolerate that sin and then to atone for that sin through Christ's Incarnation and suffering; and it is a better theodicy instead to say that sin entered the world because Adam chose to sin "for a good cause" which would entail atonement and our redemptive suffering, making it rather that God <i>positively desired</i> those sins. <br /><br />I hate to tell you, but burning down the forest to prevent a child destructively pulling a leaf off a tree might not be such a good solution. You reject Genesis because you don't like the theodicies constructed to explain it, including 3/4 of St. Paul, and in its place you would erect a myth that requires that God desires sin directly rather than tolerating it. <br /><br />In any case, you reveal over and over you have nothing in common with Christianity. You don't believe in the Bible, nor in Orthodox tenets, nor in the Fathers of early Christianity. You are just inventing your own religion, using the bits and pieces of the Bible that you like and rejecting the parts you don't. <br /><br /><i>Lest our discussion become disagreeable let's agree that ... 3) dogmas can be mistaken, </i> <br /><br />Amazing! I had no idea you were so dense. Let's get this straight: According to the Catholic Church, dogmas <b>CANNOT</b> be mistaken. You are telling me that you want me to agree to stop being Catholic to discuss with you. Boy, that's either arrogant, or ignorant, or both. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29275108745615664722017-03-17T08:35:29.373-07:002017-03-17T08:35:29.373-07:00For example if we found out for a fact that we liv...<i>For example if we found out for a fact that we live in a computer simulation then we wouldn't call apples “real objects” in the sense we use today. </i> <br /><br />Dianelos, if we found out for a fact that you're a computer simulation of a turnip, that wouldn't require any change in our understanding of reality. doubternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62036615460710194422017-03-17T06:59:31.225-07:002017-03-17T06:59:31.225-07:00@ Gyan,
”Physics proceeds by abstracting from re...@ Gyan, <br /><br /><i>”Physics proceeds by abstracting from real objects. You know, objects like apples and tables.”</i><br /><br />We don't know how reality is, that's why there is so much and so deep disagreement in metaphysics. Thus we don't really know whether apples are real objects in the first place. For example if we found out for a fact that we live in a computer simulation then we wouldn't call apples “real objects” in the sense we use today. Not to mention, those who embrace idealist metaphysics already disagree with the belief that apples are “real objects” in the common sense. Finally it's clearly false that physics proceeds by abstracting from real objects: For, again, if we found out that we live in a computer simulation not one iota would need to change in any book of physics, nor for that matter in any book of the physical sciences including chemistry, biology, paleontology, and so on. <br /><br />But I do agree that physics proceeds from abstracting from *physical phenomena*. Physical phenomena are of course part of reality, indeed they are part of the existential data we have, and which are really the only true facts we can know. Moreover it's quite evident what kind of abstraction physics does: it discovers mathematical patterns present in the set of physical phenomena. Such patters may entail phenomena we haven't yet observed, and lo and behold, when we put together the required experiment said previously unobserved phenomena now materialize. (If not then we say the respective pattern – aka scientific theory – needs improving.) <br /><br /><i>”The process of abstraction yields entities like electron and photon. So, it is definitely not the case that apples and electrons belong to the same category.”</i><br /><br />I agree that the process of abstraction over physical phenomena yields entities like electron and photon. It also yields entities like apples. That the later abstract discovery happens in the brains of infants while the former abstract discovery happens through the business of science is irrelevant to the nature of the discovery. <br /><br />I can prove to you that the apple is an abstraction over phenomena: Suppose I put a black paperboard in front of you and ask you what you see behind it. You'll answer you don't see anything because the paperboard doesn't let you. So I take a needle, make a pinhole in the paperboard and ask you again. Perhaps you'll say that you see a greenish point of light but still no object. Suppose now I continue making random pinholes in the paperboard. After probably several thousands of such pinholes at some point, rather instantly, your brain will form the clear image of an apple and you'll say: “I see an apple”. But what your brain just did was to *abstract* from a large number of dot-like pieces of light the apple you saw. The experience of the apple happens effortlessly and seemingly instantly, but what in fact is happening is that your brain discovers in the thousands of dot-like pieces of light the pattern it had learned as an infant is the pattern of the universal apple. Which is the same process that adult Newton's brain went through to discover within the perhaps thousands bits of gravitational phenomena he new about the presence of the pattern called “gravitational force-field”. <br /><br />We learn from the data we have. I wonder if you had a look to the article where I describe a set of simple observational facts which are sufficient to demonstrate why physical realists were so perplexed with quantum mechanics. Imagine Aristotle or Aquinas were to observe the same set of physical phenomena; what might they have said?Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78402841123579023462017-03-16T21:14:11.176-07:002017-03-16T21:14:11.176-07:00Dianelos,
You might usefully read a recent post by...Dianelos,<br />You might usefully read a recent post by Feser on Abstraction at this very blog. Physics proceeds by abstracting from real objects. You know, objects like apples and tables. The process of abstraction yields entities like electron and photon. So, it is definitely not the case that apples and electrons belong to the same category. <br /><br />A problem is that you don't realize or at least emphasize the fact that registering of the objects is where all knowledge proceeds from. This is what Fr Jaki has stressed in his writings and this is also Thomism. You perhaps proceed by Descartes or even Humean lines. But these starting points are grossly inadequate as Feser has tirelessly expounded over years.Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50684754793291244362017-03-16T14:15:32.667-07:002017-03-16T14:15:32.667-07:00[continues from above]
Coming back to the existen...[continues from above]<br /><br />Coming back to the existence of electrons: “Electron” describes part of the pattern discovered by Maxwell in electomagnetical phenomena. The same word also describes part of the more detailed pattern of QED discovered by Feynman and others in a huge range of phenomena. The concept of electron used by Maxwell is not the same as the one used by Feynman since the two refer to different patterns, and thus the realist understanding about electrons has also shifted. But electrons as patterns within phenomena will stay with us for ever (or at least as long as the respective physical phenomena stay with us :-)<br /><br />Not to mention that we have electron detectors which detect electrons, so it's not like with the advancement of science they might stop detecting them. Our realist understanding of the nature of what it is that which electrons detectors detect might change (as it has changed between Maxwell and Feynman) but there will always be electrons around. It's the permanence of apples in our experience of the world I'd rather worry about. <br /><br />Incidentally I've advanced with my exposition of how a few factual observations are sufficient for understanding the mystery of QM (which is not really QM's). The usefulness of the exercise is that everybody can understand what the problem is without knowing anything at all about QM, and thus realize that the problem will remain whatever may happen to QM in the future. It's observational facts that render physical realism problematic, not this or any future scientific theory. It looks like God did not wish to make metaphysics easy for us, but also did not wish to let us to go too much astray. <br /><br />It's a work in progress, but since I haven't started a blog yet if you have access to facebook you can <a href="http://bit.ly/FP-QMnotmysterious" rel="nofollow">read it here</a>. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56842626117070942652017-03-16T14:11:09.792-07:002017-03-16T14:11:09.792-07:00@ Gyan,
”quantum mechanics does not apply to the ...@ Gyan,<br /><br /><i>”quantum mechanics does not apply to the measurement process. It does not describe the wave function collapse.”</i><br /><br />It doesn't and couldn't possibly, because wave function collapse is not a phenomenon, and scientific theories only describe physical (quantitative) phenomena and the (mathematical) order present in them. Wave function collapse is a hypothesis of the Copenhagen interpretation, it is a property of a reality that would produce the phenomena and order QM describes. Other realist interpretations don't hypothesize the existence of wave function collapse. If some these other realist interpretations is the correct one then wave function collapse doesn't exist at all <br /><br />“<i>Point is that electrons and photons are entities that are postulated in some physical theory. While apples are not.</i>”<br /><br />Strictly speaking physical theory is the continuation of what infants do in order to make sense and control their surroundings, namely to produce a useful model of phenomenal impressions. So epistemically speaking the discovery of the existence of apples and of electrons is of the same kind. But, granted, there are differences also. So what's the point? Perhaps it's what you write below:<br /><br /><i>”Fundamental revision of the physical theory might eliminate necessity of postulating electrons and photons but apples remain forever.”</i><br /><br />Once again, one must be careful not to conflate science with its realist interpretation. There is one reality, and better scientific theories may cause abrupt changes in our beliefs about reality. But the theories themselves remain. A scientific theory is never falsified; rather a still better one (more exact or more general) may be discovered. <br /><br />Consider Newton's mechanics. Newton discovered and described a particular order in gravitational phenomena (whether the falling of an apple or the movement of the Moon). The description of this order entails the concept of gravitational force fields. The order in itself is purely mathematical, but the mathematics describe a force field so the two are equivalent in practice. It was natural then that physical realists assumed that force fields are real things existing in actual reality. Now several centuries later comes Einstein who discovers and describes a more precise and general order present gravitational phenomena, and calls the new theory general relativity. The description of this order entails the concept of the bending of spacetime. The order specified by general relativity is purely mathematical, but the mathematics describe the bending of spacetime so the two are equivalent in practice The physical realist will now think: It was wrong of me to believe that in reality mass produces a gravitational force fields around it (and that's why nearby things seem to be attracted by it); that early realist hypothesis is now replaced by the provably better hypothesis that mass bends spacetime around it (and that's why nearby things seem to be attracted by it). But the same effect does *not* apply in the science. The order discovered by Newton in gravitational phenomena is still there despite the fact that Einstein discovered a finer order. Thus in the science of gravitational phenomena both force fields and the bending of spacetime coexist, in the sense that they describe orders (or patterns if you will) existing in phenomena. A set of data (and that's what physical phenomena are) may contain many superposed levels of patterns. Consider for example this list of numbers: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21. One order is that it contains only whole numbers, a more detailed order is that it contains a growing list of whole numbers, a third even more revealing order is that that after the first two whole numbers each number is the sum of the previous two. The third order has greater predictive power than the second one, but does not falsify it.<br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40961280719452276572017-03-16T07:35:00.716-07:002017-03-16T07:35:00.716-07:00Dianelos Georgoudis said."Lastly I don't ...Dianelos Georgoudis said."Lastly I don't feel I am rejecting the church's position on Mary, but only that I understand the titles of “Mother of God” and of “untouched by sin” as honorific and metaphorical ones. " The Church does understand "Mother of God" as real description(also Marys sinlessness) The Catechism says and quote:" Mary's divine motherhood<br /><br />495 Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord".144 In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is TRULY"Mother of God" (Theotokos).145" SO you do reject the Churchs position on Mary ""Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."<br /><br />494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140<br /><br />As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143" Catholic theology is not your field is it?Jaimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15636155049496953832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11683816835254498842017-03-16T00:19:58.897-07:002017-03-16T00:19:58.897-07:00Dianelos,
"QM's Schroedinger equation app...Dianelos,<br />"QM's Schroedinger equation applies to all physical systems"<br /><br />You are begging the question. For one thing, quantum mechanics does not apply to the measurement process. It does not describe the wave function collapse. <br /><br />"There is as little doubt that electrons and photos exist as apples and tables exist. That we can perceive the latter but not the former is neither here nor there"<br /><br />It is not the question of perception. Point is that electrons and photons are entities that are postulated in some physical theory. While apples are not. <br />Fundamental revision of the physical theory might eliminate necessity of postulating electrons and photons but apples remain forever.Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16168329206149149082017-03-15T09:25:00.153-07:002017-03-15T09:25:00.153-07:00[continues from above]
”God's gift with grace...[continues from above]<br /><br /><i>”God's gift with grace by which he works to lift us up out of sin”</i><br /><br />As I said I am unclear about the dogma of “grace”. In my mind God's salvific grace doesn't lift us up out of sin – but rather gives us the opportunity for that. Grace is an act of creation realized by Christ's coming for all humanity: it opens a path which connects heaven and earth. <br /><br />Now there is a problem: Let's assume that Mary was not given any such special gift all but is the queen of the saints who also haven't been given any such gift. The problem remains that some of us seem to be more blessed than others (the theme that God favors some over others is already found in the Old Testament stories). This is a version of the problem of evil, and as all facets of the problem of evil this too gives us the opportunity to understand God better: Not to change our own sense of perfection to make this fact fit, but rather to see how this fact reveals to us a greater perfection of God.<br /><br />I find there is a very beautiful solution to this problem I itch to share here: The apparent differentiation of divine favor between people is indeed an evil and thus a property of the fallen state of the current human condition. But to understand the divine purpose for that fallen state one has to look at creation from the point of view of God and thus from the eschaton. And from that full point of view there are not many people but one humankind. Atonement entails unity in God and thus the unity of all humankind too. Each one of us will be there at the eschaton but we shall be one with everybody else, and when looking back we shall realize that each one of us has always been at bottom the same with our neighbor, so it's not really that some were favored more than others nor any injustice in that. Under this understanding all the apparently “excessive” ethical commands of Christ in the gospels (“return no evil but love your enemy, offer to the thief more than she wants to take from you”) - all such commands become trivially and obviously true. And several other stories and teachings of Christ in the gospel are clarified also. And finally this explanation does not fit with hellism. <br /><br /><i>”Mary's glory (not 'value', which is modern claptrap), is first in her being chosen by God for her role, and second in her perfect responsiveness to God's gifts, at every moment giving wholehearted cooperation with the gifts by which he was working in her "to will and to do" His work.”</i><br /><br />I am trying to understand how you mean the above: In your view Mary's perfect responsiveness to God's gifts was her own merit or was itself the product of another gift God gave her? <br /><br />I am asking this because I have the feeling that in the West the idea of God's sovereignty has been inflated to the point of removing our own place and thus responsibility in creation. That we can't move a finger but for God's grace, does not imply that it's not us who move our finger. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16929259713545221032017-03-15T09:24:33.229-07:002017-03-15T09:24:33.229-07:00[continues from above]
”Mary was also sinless thr...[continues from above]<br /><br /><i>”Mary was also sinless throughout her life. This is part of the Orthodox faith as much as the Catholic faith. If you reject that, you just reject both 'lungs of the Church'.”</i><br /><br />Lest our discussion become disagreeable let's agree that 1) salvation comes from repentance and from the transformation of our soul into the likeness of Christ; not from agreeing with every single dogma (which entails to worry which church if any is right in all its dogmas), 2) the meaning of dogmas is to help us to repent, 3) dogmas can be mistaken, 4) God gave us a rational soul in order to be rational. <br /><br />So here is how I reason about this matter: We don't and couldn't possibly know the last details of Mary's life on which to base the belief that she never committed the slightest sin. Therefore, if that belief is true it came to us by revelation, it is a fruit of faith. Revealed truth is truth which helps us to repent; there are no superfluous or decorative revealed truths. The belief that Mary was given the special gift never to sin in her life (as you say was thus “strengthened”) is I find irrelevant for repentance. If anything it has a negative effect, since it makes me wonder why hasn't God given me that gift that would strengthen me in the same way (the whole idea that God elects some and doesn't elect others suffers from the same problem). Secondly it diminishes my admiration for Mary and thus darkens the gospel story. For I admire Mary much more by holding that without having received such a special gift she had faith and lived the holy life. And I empathize with her much more in her suffering – she becomes the model of suffering humankind and reveals the beauty of it. Lastly I don't feel I am rejecting the church's position on Mary, but only that I understand the titles of “Mother of God” and of “untouched by sin” as honorific and metaphorical ones. <br /><br />I am thinking that much confusion is produced when one interprets in a literal sense words meant to be used spiritually. Anyway I believe we shall meet Mary in the afterlife, so we might ask her directly about this issue and settle our disagreement. <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40809790904709253572017-03-15T09:22:55.996-07:002017-03-15T09:22:55.996-07:00@ Tony,
”Speaking generically, the "end of h...@ Tony,<br /><br /><i>”Speaking generically, the "end of human life" applies equally to all humans. Not just those who are fallen.”</i><br /><br />In general when one talks about humans, one means humans in our condition, and thus neither the first and last Adam, nor humans in heaven, and so on. <br /><br /><i>”Adam and Eve were created not in a fallen state. They fell through their choice to sin, but before that choice there was no sin nor imperfection due to sin in them.”</i><br /><br />I never understood this view. For me to be in a fallen state means to be in such a state that one will perhaps choose to sin. That's what distinguishes the state of persons in heaven: they won't. <br /><br />Anyway the whole story in Genesis does not make much sense. The very word “Fall” suggests a failure in God's purpose in creation, which is an absurdity. The very early theologians of Genesis tried to explain how despite God's perfection sin entered the world, or in other words tried to produce a theodicy. And didn't quite succeed (which is no wonder given that three thousand years later and two thousand years after the incarnation of Christ we haven't yet completely succeeded either). Their idea that it's not God's purpose but Adam's disobedience that brought sin into the world does not really make sense. After all if Adam were given the kind of gift you suggest Mary was given then he would not have sinned. If God so wanted, God could certainly have created Adam to be as saints in heaven are, namely free to sin but so holy that he would never in fact choose to do so. The early theologians understood the problem of evil – and the story in Genesis was the best they could come up with. <br /><br />Alternatively, an intriguing idea is the written story that has reached us was corrupted from the original. A better suggestion about how sin entered creation (which is completely different but strangely close to the Genesis text) is as follows: Adam was created neither in a fallen nor in a perfected state, but rather in a morally vacuous state such as animals enjoy, namely not to know about good and evil and therefore not to be subject to sin. But then Adam, the rational animal, was given the following choice: “Remain in your morally blind state in which there is no suffering and no death but no blissful life in atonement either, or else learn about good and evil in which case you will fail and sin and thus enter the path of suffering and of death, but which is also the path that will lead you and your children into eternal life in unity with God.” By choosing the latter path Adam brought sin into the world. Thus sin entered the world by free choice and for a good end, the best end for Adam and all humanity which he thus committed into the same path. Without Adam there wouldn't be Christ; without Adam's falling, there wouldn't be raising in Christ. As Catholic mass puts it “felix culpa”. - The beaut of this story is that it makes Adam, the primordial human, to freely agree on the path of suffering and death, and thereby removes a point of stress in the Christian view of creation. <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10352247029382878122017-03-14T06:10:01.002-07:002017-03-14T06:10:01.002-07:00@ John West,
”Since the center of a sphere is a ...@ John West, <br /><br /><i>”Since the center of a sphere is a contingent, non-God entity, it's at least complex in that its essence and existence are distinct.”</i><br /><br />I am not considering a sphere in the actual theistic world, but in a world in which nothing but this spinning sphere exists and thus its center is non-contingent. <br /><br /><i>”Nope. I mean any property at all. My principle, I suppose, was that some one thing can't both have and not have a property at the same time, in the same respect.* (The qualifications are completely standard.)”</i><br /><br />Ah, but when I said that God is both immutable and changeable I explicitly stated that the former holds when one considers God as the metaphysical ultimate and the latter holds when one considers God as the divine participant in creation, the personal agent behind special providence. Thus I meant these properties *not* in the same respect. Incidentally given Anselm's definition as well as classical theistic understanding it is both true that God is the metaphysical ultimate (which entails immutability) and a participant in creation (which entails changeability). So, I don't see where the problem is. <br /><br /><i>”if two entities are absolutely identical, they must have the exact same properties”</i><br /><br />You mean: If two entities are identical they must have the same properties *in the same respect*. No problems here either: God when considered as the metaphysical ultimate is identical to God when considered as the participant in creation, since none of their in the same respect properties conflict. (I use “in the same respect” in the broader sense which entails “at the same time” or “under the same conditions” etc.) <br /><br /><i>”Your shape is a cube at one time and a sphere at another.”</i><br /><br />In the world I was describing there are only “pulsating” shapes, such as spherecubes, spherecylinders, cylindecubes, and so on – but no cubes, spheres or cylinders. Anyway this example is now moot. <br /><br /><i>”I didn't create the principle just to reply to you”</i><br /><br />Right, I my use of “ad-hoc” was unwise. What I meant though is this: <br /><br />Consider a general principle P that includes the concept X. Either X is well-defined and P makes an additional claim about X, namely that reality is such that P(X) is true. Or else P is used as part of the definition of X, or if you prefer one defines X in a way that comports with P. In the latter case P is just a tautology, and thus cannot be used as a premise to an argument. <br /><br />Now in everyday use the concept of “property” does not entail “in the same respect”, but in often used in relational contexts. So for example I might truthfully say “I was young but now I am old” or “This apple is visible when there is light but invisible when there is not”. The qualification “in the same respect” amounts to a change designed to make the concept of “property” fit the principle. Here the principle becomes a useful tautology in that it serves the goal of making clear the sense in which the philosopher uses the concept of property. But when one forgets that and uses the principle in an argument then one is misusing it. One should rather, like you did in the end, clarify in what sense the concept of “property” is used. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79402750886337090572017-03-14T03:08:25.086-07:002017-03-14T03:08:25.086-07:00[continues from above]
Given the vast implication...[continues from above]<br /><br />Given the vast implications in philosophy it's strange that these issues are not more generally discussed. Perhaps the problem is that by the age of three we are all physical realists, and among the grown-ups the vast majority of atheists and most theists are physical realists too, much of Christian metaphysics appears to entail physical reality, scientists would not like to advertize the fact that they have lost their grip on reality, etc – so the whole embarrassing issue is kind of swept under the rug. But the problem is real. Einstein (who was one of the founders of QM – he got his Nobel for it – but deeply disliked what QM implies for physical reality) was so frustrated that he once asked if anybody really believes that the moon is there only when one looks at it. <br /><br /><i>”Thus it is totally unjustified to assert that an apple could move without a cause”</i><br /><br />That there is movement without a cause is a feature of QM, indeed is a feature of all probabilistic theories of phenomena. When in the double-slit experiment you detect that the electron has passed through the left slit there is nothing that caused it to do so rather than pass to the right slit. So, for example, the premise of efficient cause is in trouble already. <br /><br />Now to be precise there are deterministic interpretations of QM such as Bohm's. The idea behind all such interpretations (including the much easier to conceptualize “computer simulation hypothesis”) posit that there is a vast realm of reality cognitively unreachable by us in which a large number of so-called “hidden variables” is realized. The fact that we can't possibly know their value gives us the impression of random stuff happening, of events not having a cause we can see. <br /><br />On non-realist (or anti-realist) theistic metaphysics the problem about physical objects remains. One may hold that all movement including the slot that electron passed through is caused by God's will, but I am not sure this saves A-T's premise of efficient cause. <br /><br /><i>”or a cat could be in a state of superposition of being dead and alive.”</i><br /><br />Let's not continue discussing QM because physical realism's problem has nothing to do with it; QM just called our attention to it. The problem is that our factual experience of nature has a structure that renders physical realism implausible. I have started working on the description of a simple set of such experiential facts, and God willing I'll publish this description later today. Without knowing anything about QM you could then take a go and suggest what kind of physical reality might produce the described simple set of observations. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83636139639021761412017-03-14T03:06:47.233-07:002017-03-14T03:06:47.233-07:00@ Gyan,
”Where is [it given that QM applies to al...@ Gyan,<br /><br /><i>”Where is [it given that QM applies to all matter]? You merely presume this to be so.”</i><br /><br />QM's Schroedinger equation applies to all physical systems, whether they consist of one particle or many particles (people even speak of the wavefunction of the entire universe). The strange *phenomena* (such as superposition) have already been demonstrated with atoms which consist of many particles https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/6 ; in a slightly less direct way in large organic molecules consisting of 400 atoms http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1263 ; and in the quest of building a quantum computer (I personally doubt it's possible but that's another story) they have even constructed superconducting rings https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070614104042.htm in which current appears to flows in both directions at once – a truly macroscopic case of superposition. But even if such phenomena had not been experimentally demonstrated it would be irrelevant. Physical realists try to think how reality should be in order to produce the order QM predicts for all systems, and what QM predicts is a given. <br /><br /><i>”Actually, the electrons and photons exist in a sense quite distinct from the sense in which things like apples and tables exist.”</i><br /><br />Not at all; apples consist of elementary particles and thus are of the same substance. That's true both on physical realism and physical anti-realism. <br /><br /><i>”Electrons and photons are entities postulated in physics. Apples and tables are directly perceived things.”</i><br /><br />There is as little doubt that electrons and photos exist as apples and tables exist. That we can perceive the latter but not the former is neither here nor there. On physical realism we do not directly perceive apples and tables anyway; strictly speaking we only perceive the innards of our brain. <br /><br /><i>”So, apples exist in our corporeal world while electrons and photons exist in a world defined by a physical theory.”</i><br /><br />According to physical realism there exists one physical reality in which we live. The talk about the “quantum world” and “the classical world of our everyday experience” refers to the fact that the physical world QM describes is nothing like the world we perceive when we look around. That's actually not strange. For example the “scientific theory” of the throwing of a die predicts that the six numbers will each come up with 1/6 probability, but when we actually look only one number has come up. There is no reason for a scientific theory to describe things or events in the same way we would describe them. What physical realists hope is that the scientific theory will be such that they can base on it the description of *one* physical reality, and one that does *not* violate reason. Well, as it happens the greatest scientific theory ever, QM, did not do them the favor. Which, epistemologically speaking, leaves the physical realist hanging in a very uncomfortable position: First there are several completely different realist interpretations of QM; so what reason does the realist have for picking one over the other? And secondly, each of these descriptions entails claims that appear to be more fantastic than the most imaginative ancient mythology. Such as what we do today changes past reality, or that reality consists of a vast and ever-growing number of parallel universes in some of which we cannot commit suicide no matter how we try, and in some of which the Statue of Liberty every day takes a swim around Manhattan.<br /><br />[continues below]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29234492607442275772017-03-13T22:48:29.349-07:002017-03-13T22:48:29.349-07:00Dianolos,
"given that QM applies to all matt...Dianolos,<br /> "given that QM applies to all matter and not only to small systems it follows that the same applies for apples"<br /><br />Where is this given?<br />You merely presume this to be so. Actually, the electrons and photons exist in a sense quite distinct from the sense in which things like apples and tables exist.<br /><br />Electrons and photons are entities postulated in physics. Apples and tables are directly perceived things. <br /><br />So, apples exist in our corporeal world while electrons and photons exist in a world defined by a physical theory. <br /><br />The laws and expected behavior of one world do not necessarily translate into another world. Thus it is totally unjustified to assert that an apple could move without a cause or a cat could be in a state of superposition of being dead and alive.Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61553353155122096422017-03-13T16:59:51.860-07:002017-03-13T16:59:51.860-07:00@Danielos Georgoudis:
"It does, and it is ea...@Danielos Georgoudis:<br /><br />"It does, and it is easy enough to understand why."<br /><br />It does not. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Go read Bohr -- his papers, his collected works, Plotnitsky's book "Niels Bohr and complementarity", etc.<br /><br />"All interpretations of QM propose a description of physical reality that would produce the phenomena that QM predicts, thus all of them are realist interpretations."<br /><br />This is of course, false under the common meaning of "realist interpretation", e.g. in instrumentalist interpretations (some of them derivative of the Copenhangen interpretation). Now we learn, that "realist" as you are using is a rigorously redundant qualifier.<br /><br />"Why?"<br /><br />Is this a serious request for me to give what is an elementary proof in QM? I will honor it if that is indeed your request, but you really ought to know something about the subject.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.com