“You know the formula: m over nought equals infinity, m being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by nought? In which case you have m equals infinity times nought. That is to say that a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?”
Aldous Huxley, Point Counter Point (Urbana-Champaign: Dalkey Archive Press, 2001), 135. From here.
Defintion of infinity:
m/0 = ∞Multiply both sides by zero:
(m/0) * 0 = ∞ * 0On the left, the zero in the numerator cancels the zero in the denominator, leaving:
m = ∞ * 0Therefore, something, m, comes from nothing, with the leverage of infinite assistance.
Completely wrong. Sorry Huxley and Stan.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Fallacies_based_on_division_by_zero
Then unless you fully define the criteria for “justification” you need not prove anything; “justification” is a subjective term, and you may justify your belief in many different ways including emotional attachment.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. One could adhere to PM because it feels correct, just like one can believe in a god because it seems obvious. In both cases, the reasons are purely subjective.
However, one can also adhere to a specific belief because of set of claims that can be proven true. The goal of the current argument that started with assumption (1) is to discuss the truth value of such claims, as my personal belief in the PM worldview comes from objective claims that can be verified. The belief is personal and subjective, just like your belief in a god, just like any belief; however, the truth value of the claims is not subjective.
May I ask why that even needed clarification? It looks like a red hearing to me, something that adds nothing to the discussion regarding the argument. However, if it's your contention that the argument is futile should it leads to nothing more than supporting a belief, then say so and we are done. Again, you appear to be wasting my time...
Next, the following two paragraphs are complete gibberish:
However, under Philosophical Materialism, justification requires impeccable material evidence...............despite the obvious logic Category Error of doing so.
No idea what you are talking about so I fail to see how it relates to the argument. You seem to be attacking some form of evidentiary standard you disagree with, a standard that someone who adheres to PM would use to determine the truth value of any claim. That's non-sense. All claims are independent of each other and require their own evaluation to be declared 'true'.
So if you are to eliminate non-material entities, you must use the actual criteria of PM to generate the impeccable material empirical knowledge which objectively allows you to do so.
That is the problem which you face.
First, What non-material entities? I don't recall rejecting anything of that sort.
Second, There is no such thing as 'criteria of PM'.
Third, I don't face any problem assessing the truth value of any claims. No idea what you are talking about.
This doesn’t seem to follow. ..........
The flying teapot was created as a False Analogy / Red Herring by Bertrand Russell, and can be discounted on that count alone. ........... No proof, just Skepticism. (I knew it would show up).
Please review some basic principles of logic and try to differentiate between what we call 'common sense' and the actual discipline of logic. Here's why:
Yes, our common sense tells us that there is no flying teapot because that's a made up idea. We know it's a made up idea because we know who made it and the definition is ridiculous.
Logically speaking however, here's what the correct assessment is:
Claim: A teapot, too small to be detected with any instrument we currently possess, is currently orbiting a distant planet.
Question: Is the claim true?
Correct logical answer: No.
Question: Is the claim false?
Correct logical answer: No.
Another example would be:
Claim: An undetectable god exists.
Question: Is the claim true?
Correct logical answer: No.
Question: Is the claim false?
Correct logical answer: No.
PS (1) unfortunately, could not even get back to the argument within 1 box...
PS (2) This post was not a joke?
m/0 = ∞
ReplyDeleteNo. No, it does not. Division of any number by zero is undefined. This is because zero multiplied by any finite number always results in a product of zero.
You have a few options. Are you going to admit this whole "divide by zero" mess was a mistake? Or dig a deeper hole? Or pretend it was a joke?
PM,
ReplyDeleteI no longer know where your reference is nor what your comments refer to. When you jump to a new post every time, you need to leave tracks to the previous place for reference.
Since you only show up occasionally I don't recall the specifics of the previous arguments and I don't intend to fish for them.
Please make your full argument, or just forget it.
PRS,
ReplyDeleteA finite number divided by zero produces an "unbounded value", which is the definition of infinity. You'd have done better to have attacked the concept of the cancelling zeroes, which actually does produce a meaningless computation.
So yes, it is a gag, yet this is the exact type of calculation being done in String Theory: cancelling infinities. Hawking buys into it, shouldn't you?
Last comment was a response to the comment thread under 'Atheism For Dummies'. Your last comment on this one was on July 20th. The passage I was replying to was quoted in my comment.
ReplyDeleteLet's recap what the argument was about:
(1) Assumption: The material exists.
Status: Now accepted by Stan without conditions.
Correct?
(2) Any theory/claim that implies that (1) could be false is false.
Status: Rejected; accepted only as an assumption.
Quote: you actually do make the assumption regarding solipsism .... it is a sub-argument of an assumption: i.e. an assumption, which you rejected .... you appear not willing to admit to it.
Discussion: Yes, it is a sub-argument. The rejection of solipsism is supported by logic; the claims of solipsism are proven false. It is thus not an assumption and I am not willing to concede that it is an assumption.
Note that I understand your confusion because assumption (1) yields a rejection of solipsism right of the bat. However, because we are using the discipline of logic to properly asses the truth value of claims, it is valid to say that solipsism is proven false since it directly violates assumption (1) by suggesting that it could be false, i.e. that the material could possibly not exist.
(3) Humans communicate through purely material means.
Status: Rejected
Quote: (1) I have shown you a source with published data and a patent.
(2) What is important to a proof is what you can actually prove, not what you “see no reason to believe”.... the attempted justification is personal, not objective
Discussion: Regarding (1), You provided no such source. What the article you cited details is a patent for a random number generator. Inside that patent, for some reason, there are comments about what this machine can be used for. An example of such usage is what you put emphasis on in your comment:
correlation of certain mean shifts of the output function with the stated intentions of operators physically isolated from the apparatus
There are 2 problems with getting such experiments:
First, this is not communication at all so I fail to see the relevance.
Second, 'physically isolated' does not mean that there is something non-physical going on. Everything happening is physical.
Regarding (2), the problem is that I am not attempting to prove PM is an absolute truth, as I have mentioned before. I am giving you my reasons to reject theistic/anti-materialist claims. I do intend to prove the truth value of any claim I made and use these claims as support for my PM beliefs. Therefore, with regards to your comment (2), the claim I am making for the 3rd point is what's written above, and I believe it to be true.
Please explain why the claim 'Humans communicate through purely material means' should be rejected.
(4) NEW CLAIM
(Since you seem to be getting impatient again... let's bring out the general claim that leads me to adhere to PM)
(4) IF it can be shown that all things that are considered 'real' are material THEN entities defined as non-material are, by definition, not real.
PM,
ReplyDeleteLet’s jump to the middle, where you make the following comment:
” Regarding (2), the problem is that I am not attempting to prove PM is an absolute truth, as I have mentioned before. I am giving you my reasons to reject theistic/anti-materialist claims. I do intend to prove the truth value of any claim I made and use these claims as support for my PM beliefs. Therefore, with regards to your comment (2), the claim I am making for the 3rd point is what's written above, and I believe it to be true.”
Here you make contradictory claims for your intent and position on your argument(s): First you seem to deny that you will prove the truth of PM; but you claim that you will demonstrate the truth of each argument for PM; finally, you claim that your point (3) is based on your personal belief in its truth.
You are making some universal claims which you will find that you are unable to prove universally true, without exception or possibility of exception.
If you are ” am not attempting to prove PM is an absolute truth” why are we even trying to deal with any logic or truth values for your statements? If you make no truth claims, but have only unprovable beliefs regarding universal issues to provide for the support of Philosophical Materialism, then why not just list them as such? There is no reason to apply either logic or any empirical, scientific methodology to claims that are not intended to result in a final truth value. Such claims might be casually interesting, but are certainly of no interest to me in terms of usefulness in a worldview containing true concepts.
So, since you are not making a final, incorrigible truth claim, but instead are listing your reasons for your belief system, then it actually is a waste of my time to try to guide your argument into that arena, and to critique it in any fashion. So I will not bother with that, and will await your full argument set, (or rather your list of reasons) and I will acknowledge your beliefs as specifically your beliefs. I already know the outcome of your reasons – your belief that PM is true, but without truth value.
Dividing by zero? I hope this is a joke.
ReplyDeleteWorking in reverse:
ReplyDeleteI already know the outcome of your reasons – your belief that PM is true, but without truth value.
No, I don't have a belief that PM is true because PM is not something that can be proven true. As it was first offered to you: PM starts by assuming that the material exists, and it is only by starting with this assumption that one can attain a rational understanding of what it means to actually exist as part of the material world. This yields the inescapable conclusion that all that can be proven to exist is also material, and finally, this yields the probable scenario that nothing non-material exists.
Probable.
Why is it probable only and not proven true? Because using logic we cannot prove the claim 'nothing non-material exists' to be true. It's that simple. Your answer to this explanation appears to have been laid out above:
If you are ” am not attempting to prove PM is an absolute truth” why are we even trying to deal with any logic or truth values for your statements?
Because even though PM is not something that can be proven true, it is encompassing several claims that can be proven true. These are truth claims such as the (2), (3) and (4) that were listed.
There is no reason to apply either logic or any empirical, scientific methodology to claims that are not intended to result in a final truth value. Such claims might be casually interesting, but are certainly of no interest to me in terms of usefulness in a worldview containing true concepts.
It's interesting that 'scientific methodology' is listed here because technically no scientific discovery is ever proven true, in the logical sense. Because scientific discoveries work by induction, there is never a final absolute truth to be found. A future observation could change the scientific landscape in such a way that a claim that was considered true in a particular context ends up being false in another.
You are making some universal claims which you will find that you are unable to prove universally true, without exception or possibility of exception
It is my understanding that very few claims are universal and thus considered to be universally true when proven true. However, the short list of arguments I made on this blog showed that even something demonstrably true, logically, can be rejected by you.
First you seem to deny that you will prove the truth of PM; but you claim that you will demonstrate the truth of each argument for PM; finally, you claim that your point (3) is based on your personal belief in its truth.
There is no contradiction. You introduce confusion by mixing various concepts. Point (3) yields useful examples:
(3) Humans communicate through purely material means.
This is not 'just' a belief. This is a fact. There is no non-material means that humans can use to communicate.
A related belief that could not be proven 100% could be: I believe that this will never change. I do have this belief to be frank, but I would never pretend that I can prove it true.
Hence the question: why do you reject (3)?
Next, I will try to come up with some lists of points per your request, but note that there is not much point listing a bunch of things that are inter-dependant if you are going to reject the first ones...
PM,
ReplyDeleteLet’s carry forward your claims:
“(1) Assumption: The material exists.
(2) Any theory/claim that implies that (1) could be false is false.
(3) Humans communicate through purely material means.
(4) IF it can be shown that all things that are considered 'real' are material THEN entities defined as non-material are, by definition, not real.”
[Parenthetically, seen all together like this, it appears to me that at least (3), and probably (1) and (2) are not necessary to the argument of (4). However, let’s proceed.]
You say,
"No, I don't have a belief that PM is true because PM is not something that can be proven true. As it was first offered to you: PM starts by assuming that the material exists, and it is only by starting with this assumption that one can attain a rational understanding of what it means to actually exist as part of the material world. This yields the inescapable conclusion that all that can be proven to exist is also material, and finally, this yields the probable scenario that nothing non-material exists."
You "don't have a belief" in PM, but you come to the inescapable conclusion of PM? Do you not see the blatant internal contradiction in your claim? Not that it matters, what matters is what you can prove is true (or inescapable). But it does seem to indicate a pattern of thought.
” ‘There is no reason to apply either logic or any empirical, scientific methodology to claims that are not intended to result in a final truth value. Such claims might be casually interesting, but are certainly of no interest to me in terms of usefulness in a worldview containing true concepts.’
It's interesting that 'scientific methodology' is listed here because technically no scientific discovery is ever proven true, in the logical sense. Because scientific discoveries work by induction, there is never a final absolute truth to be found. A future observation could change the scientific landscape in such a way that a claim that was considered true in a particular context ends up being false in another.”
If your claims are universally valid then science will find them to be validated in each and every proper test, forever, regardless of technology changes and future theories. Induction fails only when the claims are actually not valid and the scientific method ultimately finds the exception.
But in the case of universal claims such as you want to make, there are no facts which are not material facts: that is part of Philosophical Materialism and PM can't be proven valid using facts which it rejects. Hence the mind and its products including logic are material items under PM, despite not being proven so. So any logical output must be verifiable using material techniques. This is a consequence of PM.
In other words, if PM is valid, then the only valid proof for PM itself must come under the technique restrictions which PM itself requires. This, then illuminates the material problem which PM creates for itself: validating the premise for PM requires showing that the following statement is true:
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteThere is no possible existence which is not material, including outside the material universe or in parallel with the material universe or conjoined with the material universe.”
Now, understanding the type of problem that presents, let’s take your proposition (4):
”(4) IF it can be shown that all things that are considered 'real' are material THEN entities defined as non-material are, by definition, not real.”
This statement is insufficient to prove PM, for the following reasons:
(a). The term “real” is likely prejudicially favorable to material entities only, unless it is fully defined to encompass ALL possible entities, both material and non-material. The actual concept is existence vs. non-existence, and those terms should be used for clarity.
(b). The term “definition” is misused; it would seem better to claim a proof, not a definition. If you wish to define non-material existence away, that is an illegal logical operation.
(c). PM requires Material evidence for believing a thing; have you restricted your investigation a priori to material evidence? If so, then you have artificially limited your argument to the presumption of the conclusion, which is circular.
(d). The statement (4) is a universal claim (actually it is a meta-universal claim) which requires of the claimaint an incredible amount of proof for its validation, most of which references existence outside the known universe. Proof of knowledge of that which is outside or before or co-existent with the universe will require extraordinary information for its validation.
Further it cannot be allowed that (i)material evidence determines (ii)non-material existence (Category Error). So by eliminating material evidence as necessary or sufficient evidence for non-material existence, we leave logic, which actually is itself merely conceptual and non-material and thus must be disproved as existing, by… using logic (Circular).
So, understanding these limitations, and if we make the following semantic changes to your statement, then it can be allowed, and your challenge is to provide the proof it requires of you:
(4) ) IF it can be shown that all things that are considered 'to exist' are material THEN entities defined as non-material are, by eliminative demonstration, non-existent.
Do you agree that this matches your intent? If not, then explain.
And if your "inescapable conclusion" is only probabilistic, then how does probability and its calculation factor into your premises?