| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"PeteM" |
| Date: |
17 Oct 2003 12:00:03 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
Ann <aon2@hotmail.com> averred
Hi PeteM,
it's interesting to follow your line of thought. First I'll address a
hidden assumption recurrent in recent posts (warriors of Science
especially like it). The word "observation evidence" suggests that
scientists (and laymen alike:) all agree on what they see, they reach
consensus on the "evidence". The so called "observational evidence"
assumes a god-like status of being the single and only truth for all
'observers' in space-time. The assumption in turn being that we all
have identical eyesight, or more generally, that we all perceive
'reality' in the same way. That is, reality 'outside' is (and has
been:) independent of the person (perceiver).
That independence assumption (belief) is at the heart of traditional
science (and modern statistical methods) and can be traced back to
Aristotle. It is like a moral justification to research and explore
(and test and experiment with) the 'independent' Nature outside.
Unfortunately, it is an assumption that is beginning to shake, quantum
theories for one caused many troubles to the independent observer
dogma. And of course, Eastern schools of thought have never adopted the
Western dogma (including our religion and her independent God outside),
some of them postulate that the word 'Nature' (and what about 'God',
'reality':) started with the mind.
Yes. There is a considerable philosophical tradition that says the world
is in some sense a construct of mind. The idea dates back at least to
Vedantic writings.
In recent years there has been a lot of academic work attempting to
reconcile this kind of transcendent subjectivism with scientific
materialism. I am not really well enough up on it to debate it, being at
bottom a scientific materialist myself :-(
As a curious example I'll quote from the jolly (and very passionate:)
letter that Lenny Flank posted the other day (Monday, 13 Oct) to the "In
the News: Schools should not limit origins-of-life discussions to
evolution" thread. It won't be an exaggeration to say that he was
[snip]
Therefore, "macroeconomics and weather forecasts may simply have more to
do with each other" than Lenny could imagine (i.e. more than "simply
nothing"). The word 'independent' is starting to shake. And the same with
the alleged independence between science and religion. Our religious or
scientific theories reflect our belief system, our views of the world. The
words we use in those theories depend on what we believe, they are matter
of choice and our personal preferences. The same choice that makes some
prefer the word 'God' and others 'Nature' (or 'natural' for that
matter:). By the way, have you thought about their 'independent'
definitions. Next it will be infinity's turn :)
Adherents to the naive scientism model never really consider this level
of thinking. They just regurgitate quotes from their positivist heroes.
Two adjectives slightly disturbed me in your post and I'll make my case
below. I usually disagree with the word (and symbol of) 'infinity' in its
different disguises ('infinitesimal', 'continuum', ...). I think it is not
real but a pure construct of (and in) our mind, i.e. it doesn't exist
outside of our wild imagination (and books, theories).
See my reply below.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, PeteM wrote:
Robin Levett averred
So what assumptions (in big bang cosmology) must be rejected, and what
new assumptions (in support of steady state) must be adopted so as to
explain away the observational evidence?
There are endless possibilities.
That is what I meant in the introduction, the word 'endless' as another
version of 'infinite'. The set of possibilities might be huge indeed or
even inconceivable, but "endless"? We may assume so (like the existence of
an infinite set) for simplicity, though once we start coding or counting
the possibilities they become finite.
For "endless", then, let's read "infinite", and I will deal with both
objections at once.
What you do not seem to realise is that the Big Bang theory was not
deduced from the observational evidence. It is merely a conjecture that,
in combination with certain assumptions about the behaviour of
space-time, matter and radiation, and certain entirely ad hoc
assumptions about the early universe, can approximately account for our
observations of the universe today.
But we can construct an uncountably infinite number of other theories
that would equally well account for the observational evidence.
Let's reflect on this: "can we" really "construct an uncountably infinite
number of other theories"? My impression is that however attractive and
breath-taking the words "uncountably" and "infinite number" are, they are
empty.
They aren't. The phrase "uncountably infinite" has a quite specific
meaning - it means "infinite in the same sense as the set of real
numbers is infinite". Infinite because it obviously isn't finite; and
uncountable because it cannot be mapped to the set of integers.
Why?
Let's start with the words in English. How many words are there? I assume
that the number of words is countably finite, huge but finite like in the
thickest dictionary. Of course, we constantly invent new words (including
ones for big numbers:) but their number is still finite. Their length too,
that is there seems to exist a practical (real:) upper limit on the length
of a word. We may try to construct a word with infinitely many characters
but it won't happen in anyone's lifetime. At least I do not know of any
infinitely long word. And if the number (length) of words is finite then
so is the number of their combinations. Moreover, we could even order
those words and build their combinations in exhaustive but consistent
manner (to facilitate counting and crush "un-countability").
Next, what are theories? What do theories consist of?
Theories are made of words, what a silly (but useful:) fact.
Actually not true. Physical theories are very much made up of
mathematical concepts (e.g. functions) and their relations. Real numbers
are invariably involved in these theories somewhere. The mathematical
concepts availabler to humans probably form an infinite set by
themselves. In conjunction with the real numbers, they certainly do
Of course, one could also say of ideas, thoughts, assumptions,
observations, tests, conjectures, conclusions, propositions and ... But it
is not wrong to say that on a very practical level theories consist of
words (and symbols and numbers). Let us assume that a theory is not
"endless" or "infinitely" long but made of a finite number of words (and
symbols, i.e. word abbreviations:). Since the total number of words is
also finite, the way we can combine them to form a theory is also
finite.
Not true. If it the number of ways we could combine words were finite,
we would not be able to name any given integer. We can, of course.
Moreover, we can even count all those different combinations of
words that are worthy of being called a theory. And the number of theories
satisfying your property of 'observational consistence' (i.e. "other
theories that would equally well account for the observational evidence")
will be a subset of the possible combinations, that is also finite.
No, because theories are not finite combinations of individual words.
--
PeteM
.
|
|
| User: "Ann" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
18 Oct 2003 06:54:03 AM |
|
|
Hi PeteM,
somehow I feel mathematical rigour in your reply, but do you know why you
resort to it? Because 'infinity' is just a word, the only 'proof' of its
existence lie in the realm of mathematics, or in other words, infinity
exists only in the mental universe of mathematics. Not in reality outside,
alas, and it is the same even for the real numbers (or any other
numbers:), even the real line is less real outside of our mind.
Below I'll make my obvious point, but think about it: why does the field
of finite (or discrete) mathematics exist? Perhaps there were honest
scientists who didn't want to accept (assume or believe in) the continuum
(or Newton's fluxions and Cantor's infinite set).
It is even more surprising that computers are also discrete,
i.e. skeptical about continuous infinity, they cannot 'naturally' handle
infinitesimals. They cannot because their Creator (us) cannot
either. Furthermore, machines are in a much worse position, they cannot
even imagine :)
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, PeteM wrote:
Ann <aon2@hotmail.com> averred
Hi PeteM,
it's interesting to follow your line of thought. First I'll address a
hidden assumption recurrent in recent posts (warriors of Science
especially like it). The word "observation evidence" suggests that
scientists (and laymen alike:) all agree on what they see, they reach
consensus on the "evidence". The so called "observational evidence"
assumes a god-like status of being the single and only truth for all
'observers' in space-time. The assumption in turn being that we all
have identical eyesight, or more generally, that we all perceive
'reality' in the same way. That is, reality 'outside' is (and has
been:) independent of the person (perceiver).
That independence assumption (belief) is at the heart of traditional
science (and modern statistical methods) and can be traced back to
Aristotle. It is like a moral justification to research and explore
(and test and experiment with) the 'independent' Nature outside.
Unfortunately, it is an assumption that is beginning to shake, quantum
theories for one caused many troubles to the independent observer
dogma. And of course, Eastern schools of thought have never adopted the
Western dogma (including our religion and her independent God outside),
some of them postulate that the word 'Nature' (and what about 'God',
'reality':) started with the mind.
Yes. There is a considerable philosophical tradition that says the world
is in some sense a construct of mind. The idea dates back at least to
Vedantic writings.
In recent years there has been a lot of academic work attempting to
reconcile this kind of transcendent subjectivism with scientific
materialism. I am not really well enough up on it to debate it, being at
bottom a scientific materialist myself :-(
I have no problem with your "scientific materialism", that is why we are
free people. To me the most important choice we make in life (after
accepting reason and deciding to talk) is the choice of what to believe
in. It is crucial, because our beliefs determine how we act in life. Only
very little children (and classical skeptics) can 'afford' themselves to
'know' nothing, to not believe in anything (in any word) and the jolly
question is: are they happy?
Because if children are happy at first, but then after a heavy dose of
education gradually become less happy, then ... something might not be
right in our (Western) school system. Perhaps the assumption that there
exists a teacher who knows more than the 'student' is un-warranted. Again
the idea that there is a perfect adult teacher who pours knowledge into
"the imperfect child" derives from Aristotle and the system in his Lyceum
(more than 2300 years ago). Although, his teacher Plato thought otherwise
and so did Eastern thinkers (Buddhists for one).
What is modern education? Isn't it pumping words and theories into
children's heads until they learn them by heart and recite them by
rote. It seems more like pure repetition and reiteration that has little
to do with understanding. And the same happens with the real numbers and
the so called real line. In the first class the teacher draws a finite
line on the blackboard and says "Imagine the line were endless!" and from
that moment on they are convinced, 'infinity' starts a life of its own in
their heads, they imagine.
The more knowledgeable of them would even swear the real line were indeed
for real.
As a curious example I'll quote from the jolly (and very passionate:)
letter that Lenny Flank posted the other day (Monday, 13 Oct) to the "In
the News: Schools should not limit origins-of-life discussions to
evolution" thread. It won't be an exaggeration to say that he was
[snip]
Therefore, "macroeconomics and weather forecasts may simply have more to
do with each other" than Lenny could imagine (i.e. more than "simply
nothing"). The word 'independent' is starting to shake. And the same with
the alleged independence between science and religion. Our religious or
scientific theories reflect our belief system, our views of the world. The
words we use in those theories depend on what we believe, they are matter
of choice and our personal preferences. The same choice that makes some
prefer the word 'God' and others 'Nature' (or 'natural' for that
matter:). By the way, have you thought about their 'independent'
definitions. Next it will be infinity's turn :)
Adherents to the naive scientism model never really consider this level
of thinking. They just regurgitate quotes from their positivist heroes.
Didn't get it quite, what are the "naive scientism model" and its
counterpart?
Two adjectives slightly disturbed me in your post and I'll make my case
below. I usually disagree with the word (and symbol of) 'infinity' in its
different disguises ('infinitesimal', 'continuum', ...). I think it is not
real but a pure construct of (and in) our mind, i.e. it doesn't exist
outside of our wild imagination (and books, theories).
See my reply below.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, PeteM wrote:
Robin Levett averred
So what assumptions (in big bang cosmology) must be rejected, and what
new assumptions (in support of steady state) must be adopted so as to
explain away the observational evidence?
There are endless possibilities.
That is what I meant in the introduction, the word 'endless' as another
version of 'infinite'. The set of possibilities might be huge indeed or
even inconceivable, but "endless"? We may assume so (like the existence of
an infinite set) for simplicity, though once we start coding or counting
the possibilities they become finite.
For "endless", then, let's read "infinite", and I will deal with both
objections at once.
What you do not seem to realise is that the Big Bang theory was not
deduced from the observational evidence. It is merely a conjecture that,
in combination with certain assumptions about the behaviour of
space-time, matter and radiation, and certain entirely ad hoc
assumptions about the early universe, can approximately account for our
observations of the universe today.
But we can construct an uncountably infinite number of other theories
that would equally well account for the observational evidence.
Let's reflect on this: "can we" really "construct an uncountably infinite
number of other theories"? My impression is that however attractive and
breath-taking the words "uncountably" and "infinite number" are, they are
empty.
They aren't. The phrase "uncountably infinite" has a quite specific
meaning - it means "infinite in the same sense as the set of real
numbers is infinite". Infinite because it obviously isn't finite; and
uncountable because it cannot be mapped to the set of integers.
But wasn't that exactly what I did, I described to you one such
mapping. What you did was to escape or hide behind the 'infinity' of the
"real numbers". That is you 'proved' infinity by assuming its
existence. Of course, I am not trying to map the 'real' numbers to the set
of 'natural' numbers. Instead I claim that the real line is actually
unreal, or that it simply exists only in our mind (and textbooks). Nowhere
else. And the same with the infinite lines, I don't believe they are for
real. We don't even know whether the universe is infinite, so I don't want
to imagine that a line stretches from the one 'end' of the universe to the
other and this until no end. So far I have experience only with finite
lines, numbers, time and universes and probably so did Einstein:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
By the same token I do not believe in the continuum, the fluxions, and the
universally infinite set. The infinitesimal convergence and alike are
perhaps nice abstractions for the sake of approximation but are no more
real than the divine "process of evolution". Of course, our mind can
easily make them real to us (in our head:), all it takes is to imagine it
were so or just accept the concept or the word. It is very easy, actually,
to convince a child: a couple of repetitions of the magic word are just
enough.
Why?
Let's start with the words in English. How many words are there? I assume
that the number of words is countably finite, huge but finite like in the
thickest dictionary. Of course, we constantly invent new words (including
ones for big numbers:) but their number is still finite. Their length too,
that is there seems to exist a practical (real:) upper limit on the length
of a word. We may try to construct a word with infinitely many characters
but it won't happen in anyone's lifetime. At least I do not know of any
infinitely long word. And if the number (length) of words is finite then
so is the number of their combinations. Moreover, we could even order
those words and build their combinations in exhaustive but consistent
manner (to facilitate counting and crush "un-countability").
Next, what are theories? What do theories consist of?
Theories are made of words, what a silly (but useful:) fact.
Actually not true. Physical theories are very much made up of
mathematical concepts (e.g. functions) and their relations. Real numbers
are invariably involved in these theories somewhere. The mathematical
concepts availabler to humans probably form an infinite set by
themselves. In conjunction with the real numbers, they certainly do
I see now clearly your point of view, which is different from mine :), a
matter of personal preferences for the Words.
Of course, we can think of the "mathematical concepts" as infinite, if we
choose so :) On the other hand, all those "concepts, functions, relations"
are ultimately made of words. Therefore, the old argument still applies
even for the mental universe of mathematics. It is just so that without
the Word there would be no abstract World of mathematics. Symbols,
concepts, functions are just convenient word abbreviations, a separate
(encrypted:) language that mathematicians have invented to talk
exclusively among themselves (or stalk each other:).
(I discussed etymology in a sci.skeptic thread "Logos realigy" from a
couple of months ago: to me it is no coincidence that the old greek word
'Logos' means Word, language, concept, thought, reason, meaning. Alas,
today we are slowly forgetting that "in the Beginning was the Word".)
The next step is to open all mathematical books and start counting the
concepts there. To our great astonishment their number may turn out
finite, go figure.
You may object that a lifetime wouldn't be enough to count all of them to
which I may agree :) Indeed, what if the creation of new concepts (words)
accelerates at a faster rate than my ability to count. Well, then what if
we all stop that growth and word-Creation (expansion of the universe:) for
a moment and start counting? Then we might be able to count them.
Here is another trick that would make my point clearer, i.e. that the
number of theories is finite. Every theory is uniquely characterised
(designated) by a name, there is a one to one and onto relationship
between the theory and its title (or author). Titles may vary in length
but we may agree on the fact that they consist of a finite number of
words. For example "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life", "Many-Worlds Quantum Theory" and so on.
Now apply my previous argument to the titles of the theories. Surely we
can combine all words only in a finite number of finite length titles. It
would be even easier to count them by their titles, for a title is usually
shorter than the theory itself, consisting only of handful of
words. Similarly we may concentrate on the author(s) name and count the
theories denoted by their author. If a given author has 'discovered' many
theories then we may further index his finite number of theories by some
symbol (i.e. a Number). Indeed, the number of scientists is steadily
growing (at an un/sustainable rate:) but still remains finite, bounded
from above by the total number of people on Earth.
I exclude for now alien intervention, though the moment I meet an
extraterrestrial I'll update my view on that.
Of course, one could also say of ideas, thoughts, assumptions,
observations, tests, conjectures, conclusions, propositions and ... But it
is not wrong to say that on a very practical level theories consist of
words (and symbols and numbers). Let us assume that a theory is not
"endless" or "infinitely" long but made of a finite number of words (and
symbols, i.e. word abbreviations:). Since the total number of words is
also finite, the way we can combine them to form a theory is also
finite.
Not true. If it the number of ways we could combine words were finite,
we would not be able to name any given integer. We can, of course.
Well, think again about my counter-example with the number (name, title)
of the authors of the theories. There is a finite number of people and
even if each and every one of them started inventing a theory the total
number will still be finite. For a person can invent a finite number of
them in a lifetime, alas (or thanks god:).
You (and the real line) on the other hand assume that infinity is real,
i.e. that you can continue inventing (naming, counting) words and numbers
indefinitely until we finally arrive at blissful infinity, the Best Number
(of the Beast:). Have you counted to a billion?
Sounds insane but is a good reality check (shock:). Then count to two
billion, three ... and soon your life will be over.
Anyway, infinity is implicitly assumed in the existence (reality:) of the
infinite counting process, i.e. the assumption is that (after infinite
repetition:) we may eventually converge to the infinite symbol (become one
with it:), though "catch it if you can". It is a belief that is hard to
verify in practice, therefore at the end we choose either to accept
'infinity' or not. If we accept it then we suddenly start 'seeing' it
everywhere, but is in fact no more than a projection of the beliefs in our
mind.
Kant for example, couldn't see infinity, "and I'm not sure about" the real
line.
Moreover, we can even count all those different combinations of
words that are worthy of being called a theory. And the number of theories
satisfying your property of 'observational consistence' (i.e. "other
theories that would equally well account for the observational evidence")
will be a subset of the possible combinations, that is also finite.
No, because theories are not finite combinations of individual words.
I think they are, but if you have a problem then think about the names or
authors of the theories.
Here is another relevant question: does a bunch of words without an author
and title qualify for a theory, and do theories fall independently from
the sky? Again not a trivial question that may receive different answers
depending on our beliefs.
Best,
Ann
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
17 Oct 2003 07:38:24 PM |
|
|
In article <MUm3kLA0HCk$EwlM@torquemada.net>,
PeteM <postmaster@torquemada.net> wrote:
Ann <aon2@hotmail.com> averred
Hi PeteM,
it's interesting to follow your line of thought. First I'll address a
hidden assumption recurrent in recent posts (warriors of Science
especially like it). The word "observation evidence" suggests that
scientists (and laymen alike:) all agree on what they see, they reach
consensus on the "evidence". The so called "observational evidence"
assumes a god-like status of being the single and only truth for all
'observers' in space-time. The assumption in turn being that we all
have identical eyesight, or more generally, that we all perceive
'reality' in the same way. That is, reality 'outside' is (and has
been:) independent of the person (perceiver).
That independence assumption (belief) is at the heart of traditional
science (and modern statistical methods) and can be traced back to
Aristotle. It is like a moral justification to research and explore
(and test and experiment with) the 'independent' Nature outside.
Unfortunately, it is an assumption that is beginning to shake, quantum
theories for one caused many troubles to the independent observer
dogma. And of course, Eastern schools of thought have never adopted the
Western dogma (including our religion and her independent God outside),
some of them postulate that the word 'Nature' (and what about 'God',
'reality':) started with the mind.
Yes. There is a considerable philosophical tradition that says the world
is in some sense a construct of mind. The idea dates back at least to
Vedantic writings.
In recent years there has been a lot of academic work attempting to
reconcile this kind of transcendent subjectivism with scientific
materialism. I am not really well enough up on it to debate it, being at
bottom a scientific materialist myself :-(
As a curious example I'll quote from the jolly (and very passionate:)
letter that Lenny Flank posted the other day (Monday, 13 Oct) to the "In
the News: Schools should not limit origins-of-life discussions to
evolution" thread. It won't be an exaggeration to say that he was
[snip]
Therefore, "macroeconomics and weather forecasts may simply have more to
do with each other" than Lenny could imagine (i.e. more than "simply
nothing"). The word 'independent' is starting to shake. And the same with
the alleged independence between science and religion. Our religious or
scientific theories reflect our belief system, our views of the world. The
words we use in those theories depend on what we believe, they are matter
of choice and our personal preferences. The same choice that makes some
prefer the word 'God' and others 'Nature' (or 'natural' for that
matter:). By the way, have you thought about their 'independent'
definitions. Next it will be infinity's turn :)
Adherents to the naive scientism model never really consider this level
of thinking. They just regurgitate quotes from their positivist heroes.
Two adjectives slightly disturbed me in your post and I'll make my case
below. I usually disagree with the word (and symbol of) 'infinity' in its
different disguises ('infinitesimal', 'continuum', ...). I think it is not
real but a pure construct of (and in) our mind, i.e. it doesn't exist
outside of our wild imagination (and books, theories).
See my reply below.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, PeteM wrote:
Robin Levett averred
So what assumptions (in big bang cosmology) must be rejected, and what
new assumptions (in support of steady state) must be adopted so as to
explain away the observational evidence?
There are endless possibilities.
That is what I meant in the introduction, the word 'endless' as another
version of 'infinite'. The set of possibilities might be huge indeed or
even inconceivable, but "endless"? We may assume so (like the existence of
an infinite set) for simplicity, though once we start coding or counting
the possibilities they become finite.
For "endless", then, let's read "infinite", and I will deal with both
objections at once.
What you do not seem to realise is that the Big Bang theory was not
deduced from the observational evidence. It is merely a conjecture that,
in combination with certain assumptions about the behaviour of
space-time, matter and radiation, and certain entirely ad hoc
assumptions about the early universe, can approximately account for our
observations of the universe today.
But we can construct an uncountably infinite number of other theories
that would equally well account for the observational evidence.
Let's reflect on this: "can we" really "construct an uncountably infinite
number of other theories"? My impression is that however attractive and
breath-taking the words "uncountably" and "infinite number" are, they are
empty.
They aren't. The phrase "uncountably infinite" has a quite specific
meaning - it means "infinite in the same sense as the set of real
numbers is infinite". Infinite because it obviously isn't finite; and
uncountable because it cannot be mapped to the set of integers.
Why?
Let's start with the words in English. How many words are there? I assume
that the number of words is countably finite, huge but finite like in the
thickest dictionary. Of course, we constantly invent new words (including
ones for big numbers:) but their number is still finite. Their length too,
that is there seems to exist a practical (real:) upper limit on the length
of a word. We may try to construct a word with infinitely many characters
but it won't happen in anyone's lifetime. At least I do not know of any
infinitely long word. And if the number (length) of words is finite then
so is the number of their combinations. Moreover, we could even order
those words and build their combinations in exhaustive but consistent
manner (to facilitate counting and crush "un-countability").
Next, what are theories? What do theories consist of?
Theories are made of words, what a silly (but useful:) fact.
Actually not true. Physical theories are very much made up of
mathematical concepts (e.g. functions) and their relations. Real numbers
are invariably involved in these theories somewhere. The mathematical
concepts availabler to humans probably form an infinite set by
themselves. In conjunction with the real numbers, they certainly do
Of course, one could also say of ideas, thoughts, assumptions,
observations, tests, conjectures, conclusions, propositions and ... But it
is not wrong to say that on a very practical level theories consist of
words (and symbols and numbers). Let us assume that a theory is not
"endless" or "infinitely" long but made of a finite number of words (and
symbols, i.e. word abbreviations:). Since the total number of words is
also finite, the way we can combine them to form a theory is also
finite.
Not true. If it the number of ways we could combine words were finite,
we would not be able to name any given integer. We can, of course.
Moreover, we can even count all those different combinations of
words that are worthy of being called a theory. And the number of theories
satisfying your property of 'observational consistence' (i.e. "other
theories that would equally well account for the observational evidence")
will be a subset of the possible combinations, that is also finite.
No, because theories are not finite combinations of individual words.
*
Interesting.
Given that there is a finite number of characters in a character set,
we can only form a finite number of words (word = an arrangement of
characters), unless we allow words of infinite length.
Similarly, given a finite number of words, we can only from a finite
number of sentences (sentence = an arrangement of words), unless we
allow sentences of infinite length.
And since, at least in the real world, words and sentences of infinite
length cannot exist, it follows that there is only a finite number of
theories (if a theory can be stated in a finite number of sentences.)
earle
*
Post-Christian Humanist
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antonio Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
19 Oct 2003 01:10:44 PM |
|
|
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> writes:
[...]
*
Interesting.
Given that there is a finite number of characters in a character set,
we can only form a finite number of words (word = an arrangement of
characters), unless we allow words of infinite length.
a
aa
aaa
aaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaa
..
..
..
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
18 Oct 2003 05:51:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:38:24 +0000 (UTC), Earle Jones
<earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <MUm3kLA0HCk$EwlM@torquemada.net>,
PeteM <postmaster@torquemada.net> wrote:
Ann <aon2@hotmail.com> averred
Hi PeteM,
it's interesting to follow your line of thought. First I'll address a
hidden assumption recurrent in recent posts (warriors of Science
especially like it). The word "observation evidence" suggests that
scientists (and laymen alike:) all agree on what they see, they reach
consensus on the "evidence". The so called "observational evidence"
assumes a god-like status of being the single and only truth for all
'observers' in space-time. The assumption in turn being that we all
have identical eyesight, or more generally, that we all perceive
'reality' in the same way. That is, reality 'outside' is (and has
been:) independent of the person (perceiver).
That independence assumption (belief) is at the heart of traditional
science (and modern statistical methods) and can be traced back to
Aristotle. It is like a moral justification to research and explore
(and test and experiment with) the 'independent' Nature outside.
Unfortunately, it is an assumption that is beginning to shake, quantum
theories for one caused many troubles to the independent observer
dogma. And of course, Eastern schools of thought have never adopted the
Western dogma (including our religion and her independent God outside),
some of them postulate that the word 'Nature' (and what about 'God',
'reality':) started with the mind.
Yes. There is a considerable philosophical tradition that says the world
is in some sense a construct of mind. The idea dates back at least to
Vedantic writings.
In recent years there has been a lot of academic work attempting to
reconcile this kind of transcendent subjectivism with scientific
materialism. I am not really well enough up on it to debate it, being at
bottom a scientific materialist myself :-(
As a curious example I'll quote from the jolly (and very passionate:)
letter that Lenny Flank posted the other day (Monday, 13 Oct) to the "In
the News: Schools should not limit origins-of-life discussions to
evolution" thread. It won't be an exaggeration to say that he was
[snip]
Therefore, "macroeconomics and weather forecasts may simply have more to
do with each other" than Lenny could imagine (i.e. more than "simply
nothing"). The word 'independent' is starting to shake. And the same with
the alleged independence between science and religion. Our religious or
scientific theories reflect our belief system, our views of the world. The
words we use in those theories depend on what we believe, they are matter
of choice and our personal preferences. The same choice that makes some
prefer the word 'God' and others 'Nature' (or 'natural' for that
matter:). By the way, have you thought about their 'independent'
definitions. Next it will be infinity's turn :)
Adherents to the naive scientism model never really consider this level
of thinking. They just regurgitate quotes from their positivist heroes.
Two adjectives slightly disturbed me in your post and I'll make my case
below. I usually disagree with the word (and symbol of) 'infinity' in its
different disguises ('infinitesimal', 'continuum', ...). I think it is not
real but a pure construct of (and in) our mind, i.e. it doesn't exist
outside of our wild imagination (and books, theories).
See my reply below.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, PeteM wrote:
Robin Levett averred
So what assumptions (in big bang cosmology) must be rejected, and what
new assumptions (in support of steady state) must be adopted so as to
explain away the observational evidence?
There are endless possibilities.
That is what I meant in the introduction, the word 'endless' as another
version of 'infinite'. The set of possibilities might be huge indeed or
even inconceivable, but "endless"? We may assume so (like the existence of
an infinite set) for simplicity, though once we start coding or counting
the possibilities they become finite.
For "endless", then, let's read "infinite", and I will deal with both
objections at once.
What you do not seem to realise is that the Big Bang theory was not
deduced from the observational evidence. It is merely a conjecture that,
in combination with certain assumptions about the behaviour of
space-time, matter and radiation, and certain entirely ad hoc
assumptions about the early universe, can approximately account for our
observations of the universe today.
But we can construct an uncountably infinite number of other theories
that would equally well account for the observational evidence.
Let's reflect on this: "can we" really "construct an uncountably infinite
number of other theories"? My impression is that however attractive and
breath-taking the words "uncountably" and "infinite number" are, they are
empty.
They aren't. The phrase "uncountably infinite" has a quite specific
meaning - it means "infinite in the same sense as the set of real
numbers is infinite". Infinite because it obviously isn't finite; and
uncountable because it cannot be mapped to the set of integers.
Why?
Let's start with the words in English. How many words are there? I assume
that the number of words is countably finite, huge but finite like in the
thickest dictionary. Of course, we constantly invent new words (including
ones for big numbers:) but their number is still finite. Their length too,
that is there seems to exist a practical (real:) upper limit on the length
of a word. We may try to construct a word with infinitely many characters
but it won't happen in anyone's lifetime. At least I do not know of any
infinitely long word. And if the number (length) of words is finite then
so is the number of their combinations. Moreover, we could even order
those words and build their combinations in exhaustive but consistent
manner (to facilitate counting and crush "un-countability").
Next, what are theories? What do theories consist of?
Theories are made of words, what a silly (but useful:) fact.
Actually not true. Physical theories are very much made up of
mathematical concepts (e.g. functions) and their relations. Real numbers
are invariably involved in these theories somewhere. The mathematical
concepts availabler to humans probably form an infinite set by
themselves. In conjunction with the real numbers, they certainly do
Of course, one could also say of ideas, thoughts, assumptions,
observations, tests, conjectures, conclusions, propositions and ... But it
is not wrong to say that on a very practical level theories consist of
words (and symbols and numbers). Let us assume that a theory is not
"endless" or "infinitely" long but made of a finite number of words (and
symbols, i.e. word abbreviations:). Since the total number of words is
also finite, the way we can combine them to form a theory is also
finite.
Not true. If it the number of ways we could combine words were finite,
we would not be able to name any given integer. We can, of course.
Moreover, we can even count all those different combinations of
words that are worthy of being called a theory. And the number of theories
satisfying your property of 'observational consistence' (i.e. "other
theories that would equally well account for the observational evidence")
will be a subset of the possible combinations, that is also finite.
No, because theories are not finite combinations of individual words.
*
Interesting.
Given that there is a finite number of characters in a character set,
we can only form a finite number of words (word = an arrangement of
characters), unless we allow words of infinite length.
Similarly, given a finite number of words, we can only from a finite
number of sentences (sentence = an arrangement of words), unless we
allow sentences of infinite length.
And since, at least in the real world, words and sentences of infinite
length cannot exist, it follows that there is only a finite number of
theories (if a theory can be stated in a finite number of sentences.)
Since any theory can make use of any possible number, there is an
infinite number of theories. This means that some would HAVE to be
infinitely long in size to be able to define the number, true (such as
"space is a function of the irrational number 1.9864890...") But that
doesn't make it an invalid theory.
---
Mike atheism: a non-prophet
organization...
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way
when you do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their
shoes.
-------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
