Re: Burnt out on gaming. Games burnt out on me.

In article <loqvi1dt3171ibjjda9gtagvcp6s45illf@xxxxxxx>, mike_noren2002
@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
> Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Spake Unto All:

> >After all,
> >that IS the sole purpose of any explanation of a seeming problem - to
> >get rid of or otherwise circumvent it!
>
> No, the purpose of a theory is to explain all the evidence. The
> purpose of an an ad hoc explanation is to explain why your theory
> DOESN'T explain all the evidence.

No, the purpose of an *explanation*. Explanations don;t have to be ad
hoc, or the term is meaningless.

> >> Like I said, there is actually no reason to suppose God can not do
> >> logically impossible things. Actually, if the old testament is to be
> >> believed, he CAN do logically impossible things, and would be able to,
> >> say, travel back in time and create himself.
> >
> >Why do you say *that* is logically impossible? Logical impossibilities
> >are things like "being able to make a stone so heavy that someone who
> >can lift any possible stone can't lift it".
>
> That's just a different paradox due to thermodynamics and properties
> of the universe, like "gravity" and "mass", which are supposedly under
> Gods control.

But it's nothing to do with logic. The example I gave is a logical
impossibility, going back in time to create yourself is just very
improbable according to our current understanding of physics, which is
less than complete.

> If you want to get away from the physical universe, whose laws are
> physics, not logic, you may want to give examples like "God could not
> make 1 + 1 = 3" as a logical impossibility.

Yes, that's a good example.

> Like, Oh, I don't know, 2000 people is more numerous than 5 fish and 2
> loaves.

Indeed, but I don't believe that the story suggests that the feat was
accomplished via a suspension of the laws of arithmetic. A suspension
of conservation of mass would have done, as would a purely metaphorical
explanation similar to the well-known parable of the Stone Soup.

> >Put like that, it's
> >clearly a defect in the description, like calling for a sentence that
> >is true and false at the same time.
>
> You mean like "This sentence is false"?

Yes, though that's less clear-cut than "1 + 1 = 3".

> >Travelling back in time to create yourself is thermodynamically
> >unlikely for a complex organism, but there's clearly nothing logically
> >impossible about it.
>
> How can you exist to go back in time if you've not yet been created?

How can you exist to travel to New York if you aren't already there?

> You will find that if you are not bound by time or the laws of the
> physical universe, which God supposedly is not, there is not anything
> one can do with or to the physical universe which is logically
> impossible. Including creating a rock so heavy you can't lift it - and
> then lift it.

No, if I'm logical I won't find anything like that. These are two
completely different issues.

> "Logically impossible" only means that you're in violation of the
> formal rules of logic, just like travelling back in time and creating
> yourself is a breach of the formal rules of this universe, and the
> result is a paradox.

Formal logic is not physics. A 'paradox' in logic means 'a statement
that makes no sense'. A paradox in physics means 'our model is
incorrect or incomplete'.

> What Aquinas, via you, is really saying is that God is incapable of
> creating paradoxes - but judging by the bible he's quite good at it.

Creating paradoxes is easy. But saying 'God can make 1 + 1 = 3' is
just making a meaningless noise.

- Gerry Quinn




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Its all so simple
    ... of the medium, as is the case for other media, such as its bulk ... wave, though it exhibits properties of both those. ... mathematical models of nature not in an explanation of how nature works. ... If Physics wants to be classed as a science it has either to accept Lorentz's theoretical structure, come up with an alternative, or look for an entirely different theory and get that to work. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: wanted - rigorous definition of "wave"
    ... only works for a SUBSET of waves, much like "gives live birth to its ... the context of physics. ... explanation, and if those are ruled out, then the only possible ... that pretty much sums up the idea of waves without a medium. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Reason and Faith by Ron Stephens
    ... what do I mean by the word "God"? ... what I mean is that reality and existence have intelligent ... This question of purpose is worthy of intelligent consideration. ... Quantum Physics and Relativity Theory, ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: nuclear shell model periodic table
    ... *all* nuclear scientists deny that. ... This has nothing at all to do with being cheated, idiot. ... in many cases, physics *needs* math. ... I already gave a short explanation. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Scientific theories in crankdom
    ... freshman physics are too arcane to believe, ... The question really is the philosophy underpinning ... predict the outcome but provides no causal explanation. ... There is an aether which is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)