Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Here’s a very crude analogy: imagine an equation to unfailingly predict what card will be randomly drawn from a 52 card deck, and the equation reads 1/52+1/52 etc. 52 times. Can’t miss, right? In this case not very useful, either. But is the genius mathematician who comes up with this equation saying that all 52 cards are really being drawn at the same time? Thus violating the laws of identity, excluded middle etc?

If he's drawing cards from a deck, unless he's putting it back, it wouldn't be 1/52+1/52+1/52. It would be 1/52*1/51*1/50*1/49.

And actually, even if there was replacement involved, the actual formula would be more like this: 1 - (1 - 1/52)^(number of trials) (^ = to the power of). It would never really hit 1, no matter how many times he drew from the deck. It would just approach 1.

Just thought I'd make a nerdy point - if I am understanding what you're saying correctly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd make a nerdy point - if I am understanding what you're saying correctly

For goodness sakes, assume only one draw. I’m trying to point out that just because a mathematical formula encompasses the occurrence of mutually exclusive events, doesn’t mean that mutually exclusive events happen.

I’m doubting the card analogy communicates the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

-Ayn Rand

EDIT: I want to make this more clear... What the physicists have claimed to find regarding quantum physics is a contradiction. Therefore an Objectivist has two options:

1) Accept Rand's maxim above and therefore determine that the physicists have made a mistake somewhere (one need not know WHERE the mistake has been made in order to know that there indeed is a mistake)

OR

2) Reject Rand's maxim above in favor of the physicist's conclusions, and accept that contradictions do indeed exist and therefore no knowledge is possible (including this little bit).

You also need to consider the fact that it is not always easy to determine whether some proposed theory contains a contradiction or not. In fact, it must be done with the greatest care.

Consider your insistence above that mass is a necessary component of absolutely any physical object, and physicists who say that photons have no mass (which, incidentally, is all of them) are drawing "Ridiculous and illogical conclusions..." What is mass? Well, it's an attribute of a particle that gives it inertia, and allows it to be acted on by the gravitational force. Now think about electric charge; that is an attribute of a particle that allows it to be acted on by the electromagnetic force. You don't have any compunctions, I assume, when physicists declare that neutrons have zero electric charge? Yet you insist that all particles obviously must have some gravitational charge (mass)? One of the dangers in forming concepts such as "particle" is that you might include things in there which are not actually essential to the concept (like insisting that all of them must have mass). That is an empirical question that we must answer through experimentation and induction.

When people first started to obtain evidence of wave-particle duality, there were scientists who insisted that this evidence was being wrongly interpreted; we know that waves and particles are two mutually exclusive types of objects. Therefore, to say that some entities have properties of both is obviously contradictory. Well, it wasn't the conclusions that needed to be rethought, but rather our very conceptualizations of the concepts "wave" and "particle." Might you need to do the same with "mass?" We are still obviously searching for a theory without self-contradictions, but along the way we might find that things which we thought to be mutually exclusive or contradictory are actually not. The laws of logic actually give us relatively little guidance in pushing the frontiers of physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also need to consider the fact that it is not always easy to determine whether some proposed theory contains a contradiction or not. In fact, it must be done with the greatest care.

Consider your insistence above that mass is a necessary component of absolutely any physical object, and physicists who say that photons have no mass (which, incidentally, is all of them) are drawing "Ridiculous and illogical conclusions..." What is mass? Well, it's an attribute of a particle that gives it inertia, and allows it to be acted on by the gravitational force. Now think about electric charge; that is an attribute of a particle that allows it to be acted on by the electromagnetic force. You don't have any compunctions, I assume, when physicists declare that neutrons have zero electric charge? Yet you insist that all particles obviously must have some gravitational charge (mass)? One of the dangers in forming concepts such as "particle" is that you might include things in there which are not actually essential to the concept (like insisting that all of them must have mass). That is an empirical question that we must answer through experimentation and induction.

When people first started to obtain evidence of wave-particle duality, there were scientists who insisted that this evidence was being wrongly interpreted; we know that waves and particles are two mutually exclusive types of objects. Therefore, to say that some entities have properties of both is obviously contradictory. Well, it wasn't the conclusions that needed to be rethought, but rather our very conceptualizations of the concepts "wave" and "particle." Might you need to do the same with "mass?" We are still obviously searching for a theory without self-contradictions, but along the way we might find that things which we thought to be mutually exclusive or contradictory are actually not. The laws of logic actually give us relatively little guidance in pushing the frontiers of physics.

I completely agree. I was actually careful to say "probably" because I personally do not know any of the details. The problem that I was pointing out was the fact that they had seemed to conclude that photons have no mass on the grounds that they have no means of discovering a photon's mass. Of course, better than saying "they don't have mass" and "they probably do" is saying "we don't know yet".

The point I wanted to get across is that our inability to know a property of something does not in any way negate that property if it is there.

I personally don't have much interest in that particular issue (whether photons have mass or not). I care more about the observation you pointed out which is that they are physical objects and that energy is a property of an object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, no one thinks the cat is alive and dead at the same time, that’s the point of the metaphor. This is about the prediction of events at the quantum level.

Then all I am saying is that the prediction has an error somewhere if it predicts a contradiction.

Here’s a very crude analogy: imagine an equation to unfailingly predict what card will be randomly drawn from a 52 card deck, and the equation reads 1/52+1/52 etc. 52 times. Can’t miss, right? In this case not very useful, either. But is the genius mathematician who comes up with this equation saying that all 52 cards are really being drawn at the same time? Thus violating the laws of identity, excluded middle etc?

I don't know if he is saying that or not. I know that YOU said that QM models have particles behaving contradictory, and my response is that those models/predictions have an error somewhere (which I think is exactly what Rand would say based on that quote I posted of hers recently).

I'm not saying they don't know what they are talking about. I'm not saying they're idiots. I'm not saying that there research and conclusions are void of any value. I am only saying what Rand has said: Contradictions do not (and I would add CAN NOT) exist. If you think you've come across one, you have made a mistake somewhere. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually more interested in getting back on track to our discussion. Do you have a response to the third part of that above post of mine concerning what my argument is and is not resting on?

Meanwhile I'll answer your below objection really quick.

Your position IS contradictory. You require the existence of a volition able to cause the very first action to occur, but do not require there to be a cause of that volition.

You set aside the laws of causality as soon as you fill in the blank of causal requirement with God.

I never said that there isn't a cause of that volitional action. I will admit that the type of cause is a little different, though. Remember that causation deals with entities acting according to their nature. A volitional action will have a different type of causality then a non-volitional action because of the differing natures. The cause of volitional action is a combination of consciousness and values. So what was the cause of God's initial action of motion in the universe? The answer must lie somewhere in His values. No contradictions there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then all I am saying is that the prediction has an error somewhere if it predicts a contradiction.

It doesn’t predict a contradiction, it subsumes the probabilities of mutually exclusive events.

Here’s a cruder analogy: someone flips a coin, and while it’s in the air you call it “heads or tails”. It comes up heads, and you win a Nobel Prize for your amazingly accurate prediction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn’t predict a contradiction, it subsumes the probabilities of mutually exclusive events.

Here’s a cruder analogy: someone flips a coin, and while it’s in the air you call it “heads or tails”. It comes up heads, and you win a Nobel Prize for your amazingly accurate prediction.

That's fine with me then- The Nobel Prize doesn't really seem to mean much anyway ;) Haha!

I've just heard too many people saying "both heads & tails at the same time!" which is the type of thing I was criticizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine with me then- The Nobel Prize doesn't really seem to mean much anyway ;) Haha!

I've just heard too many people saying "both heads & tails at the same time!" which is the type of thing I was criticizing.

But until the coin lands, or, more precisely, until you look at it, that is what the equations say. Both heads and tails, all bases are covered. If you can make it more exact, your Nobel Prize awaits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And actually, even if there was replacement involved, the actual formula would be more like this: 1 - (1 - 1/52)^(number of trials) (^ = to the power of). It would never really hit 1, no matter how many times he drew from the deck. It would just approach 1.

Actually I had no idea what I was talking about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that there isn't a cause of that volitional action. I will admit that the type of cause is a little different, though. Remember that causation deals with entities acting according to their nature. A volitional action will have a different type of causality then a non-volitional action because of the differing natures. The cause of volitional action is a combination of consciousness and values. So what was the cause of God's initial action of motion in the universe? The answer must lie somewhere in His values. No contradictions there.

Volition is a characteristic of a living being. Values are a characteristic of a living being.

Living beings have causes.

SO what caused God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volition is a characteristic of a living being. Values are a characteristic of a living being.

Living beings have causes.

Really? Is this a universal principle? That all living beings must have causes? Does the idea of an un-caused living being violate some unknown law of logic?

SO what caused God?

Nothing.

Why do you suppose that God requires a cause. I sincerely hope (against what I know is probably the case) that you don't intend to say that I've contradicted myself by accusing me of asserting "that everything requires a cause" because I most certainly have not ever said that and I have not operated off of that fallacious principle once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope (against what I know is probably the case) that you don't intend to say that I've contradicted myself by accusing me of asserting "that everything requires a cause" because I most certainly have not ever said that and I have not operated off of that fallacious principle once.

What you have said is that motion in the universe requires a cause. Which begs the question; do you think that energy is eternal? I mean, a basic law of the universe seems to be that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and motion is simply a type of energy (kinetic energy). In fact, kinetic energy gets transformed into other types of energy, and vice versa, all the time, by purely natural processes. If energy is eternal, then what exactly is so special about kinetic energy, that requires a starting point with zero kinetic energy present in the universe, and them some initial volition transforming other types of energy into KE? That's essentially what you've argued must have happened, if I understand you correctly, but it makes much less sense when one recalls that motion is simply a form of energy, and energy is eternal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Is this a universal principle? That all living beings must have causes? Does the idea of an un-caused living being violate some unknown law of logic?

Are you aware of any living beings who have not had some cause?

Nothing.

Why do you suppose that God requires a cause. I sincerely hope (against what I know is probably the case) that you don't intend to say that I've contradicted myself by accusing me of asserting "that everything requires a cause" because I most certainly have not ever said that and I have not operated off of that fallacious principle once.

Are you aware of any living beings who have not had some cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you aware of any living beings who have not had some cause?

Are you aware of any living beings who have not had some cause?

Yes. God.

Have I ever seen Him? Do I have empirical proof that He exists and that He doesn't have a cause?

No.

Do I need it?

No.

Instead of asking insinuating questions with vague implications of your approximate (but unspoken) epistemological laws, why not just STATE them in the open and accuse me of violating them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you have said is that motion in the universe requires a cause. Which begs the question; do you think that energy is eternal? I mean, a basic law of the universe seems to be that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and motion is simply a type of energy (kinetic energy). In fact, kinetic energy gets transformed into other types of energy, and vice versa, all the time, by purely natural processes. If energy is eternal, then what exactly is so special about kinetic energy, that requires a starting point with zero kinetic energy present in the universe, and them some initial volition transforming other types of energy into KE? That's essentially what you've argued must have happened, if I understand you correctly, but it makes much less sense when one recalls that motion is simply a form of energy, and energy is eternal.

Actually, my main argument is a bit more broad then that. We've focused in on "motion" because it's the easiest to have a conversation about. But my main argument is as follows:

1) An entity cannot act against it's nature

2) An entity's nature in respect to action is either volitional or non-volitional (reactionary)

3) All reactionary actions presume prior action

4) An infinite regress of reactionary actions is impossible

5) There must be a volitional action which began the series of reactionary actions

6) A volitional action presumes a volitional actor, and volition presumes consciousness and values

Whether energy is eternal or not doesn't really factor in. Any change in the state of energy or matter or whatever else wants to be postulated would be considered an action- which would either be volitional or not.

Either the energy being postulated is an attribute of some entity (to which the first point of my argument should be applied), or the energy being postulated is, itself, an entity (in which case the first point of my argument is likewise applicable).

I don't care much whether anyone wants to claim that this eternal energy is an entity, itself, or that it is an attribute of some non-material entity. Either way, an entity will be involved and the Law of Identity (and therefore the rest of my argument) will apply.

Edited by Jacob86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) An entity cannot act against it's nature

2) An entity's nature in respect to action is either volitional or non-volitional (reactionary)

3) All reactionary actions presume prior action

4) An infinite regress of reactionary actions is impossible

5) There must be a volitional action which began the series of reactionary actions

6) A volitional action presumes a volitional actor, and volition presumes consciousness and values

1) is right.

1 out of 6 is pretty bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) is right.

1 out of 6 is pretty bad.

1) An entity cannot act against it's nature (Law of Identity)

2) An entity's nature in respect to action is either volitional or non-volitional (Law of the Excluded Middle)

3) All reactionary actions presume prior action (Identity-- "RE" means in response to prior action)

4) An infinite regress of reactionary actions is impossible (LNC-- An infinite regress is a conradiction. See Infinite Quantity Thread)

5) There must be a volitional action which began the series of reactionary actions (LEM-- Only volitional or non-volitional/reactionary are possibilities and the latter is precluded by the above, therefore the former is the only option)

6) A volitional action presumes a volitional actor, and volition presumes consciousness and values (Identity-- see the Oist definitinos and explanations of "volition").

Please point out any errors and openly state your epistemological laws which I apparently violate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please point out any errors and openly state your epistemological laws which I apparently violate.

For starters, your packaging of non-volitional and reactionary together, as well as volitional and non-reactionary. Yes, it is true that all volitional action is self-caused in a sense (non-reactionary). However, your claim is much stronger; namely, that all non-reactionary action is volitional action, and I see no support for this claim. In fact, in a universe where spontaneous actions seems to be an inherent capacity of the fabric of the universe, I see only evidence to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, your packaging of non-volitional and reactionary together, as well as volitional and non-reactionary. Yes, it is true that all volitional action is self-caused in a sense (non-reactionary). However, your claim is much stronger; namely, that all non-reactionary action is volitional action, and I see no support for this claim. In fact, in a universe where spontaneous actions seems to be an inherent capacity of the fabric of the universe, I see only evidence to the contrary.

What do you mean by "spontaneous", though? Do you mean "without any known natural cause" or do you mean "without any natural cause"?

And if the latter, isn't this a form of mysticism?

Of course, you would probably rather say "without an outside cause... of course the action comes from the entity's nature"

So then, it is an inside cause rather than an outside cause. But this doesn't really change anything other than turning the question inward rather than outward.

And then this begs the question of the type of nature. It's nature is either volitional or not. If not, then it cannot choose to act. If it cannot choose to act, then it cannot act entirely of it's own accord, and therefore any action is owing to some part(s) of it which are either volitional or not, etc...

Do you see what I mean?

A reaction can come from inside the thing (like many of our non-voluntary bodily functions), but these are still reactions. If an entity acts, and it's action is not a reaction to something outside or inside of it, then it's action was self-directed/chosen/volitional.

Edited by Jacob86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante said:

In fact, in a universe where spontaneous actions seems to be an inherent capacity of the fabric of the universe, I see only evidence to the contrary.

Could you give an example of an observation that "spontaneous " action applies to? And what exactly is meant by "the fabric of the universe"?

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you give an example of an observation that "spontaneous " action applies to? And what exactly is meant by "the fabric of the universe"?

By "the fabric of the universe," I mean the vacuum, which we now know is a little more interesting than just empty space. An example of the type of spontaneous action that I am referring to would be the vacuum fluctuations consisting of virtual particles zapping in and out of existence. Of course, I am not proposing that these phenomena are causeless, but rather that they result from the nature of the vacuum and that they do not require other entities interacting with the vacuum in order to occur. Hence, I see no reason to conclude that explaining them requires reference to previous actions; thus the term 'spontaneous.'

It's nature is either volitional or not. If not, then it cannot choose to act. If it cannot choose to act, then it cannot act entirely of it's own accord...If an entity acts, and it's action is not a reaction to something outside or inside of it, then it's action was self-directed/chosen/volitional...

This is the extra step that you continue to make, that I am questioning; that 'choosing to act' and 'acting entirely of its own accord' are always and everywhere one and the same thing, two different ways to reference the exact same group of phenomena. I see no support for the proposition that volition is the only quality of an object that enables it to initiate action, or that "volition" and "the ability to initiate action" are two different ways of saying the same thing. Your argument fundamentally relies on your assumption that you can simply hash together self-directed with volitional as you do, when I am saying that you are importing additional things when you do that; self-directed becomes consciously self-directed when you move to volition.

Edited by Dante
Added reply to Jacob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued. How so?

I assume what 2046 is referencing here is Ayn Rand's argument in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics," where she proposes that the concept of value presupposes "an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." She goes on to argue that the only fundamental alternative that exists in the universe is existence or non-existence, which pertains only to living things (i.e. entities which can cease to exist qua living things). She illustrates this point by contrasting living things with a hypothetical immortal, indestructible robot, concluding that such a being "could have no interests and no goals."

I did not really understand this argument when I first read this essay by Rand, and it greatly helped me to read Tara Smith's explication of it in Viable Values. The section particularly relevant to this argument (that immortal beings cannot have values) is "Imagining Immortality," a subsection of "Life Makes The Concept of Value Possible." I believe that the entirety of the section "Imagining Immortality" can be viewed in the Google books preview here (if the link doesn't work, simply Google "tara smith viable values imagining immortality" and its the first result). The section spans pages 87-90, which I believe are all available to view on the Google books preview.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...