Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

I think the point is that if we are dealing with abstractions that we effectively invent, there isn't the uncertainty we necessarily have with the real world. Clearly the natural numbers I mentioned before,  ℕ = {0, 1, 2, 3,...}, have a connection to the real world but they remain abstract and well defined logical concepts. The same goes for the basic operations; addition and multiplication. If we're restricting ourselves to ℕ, then division and subtraction are restricted but also well defined.

Once you are in such an abstract space, we don't have the sort of problems with soundness that we have with the real world, because everything we're dealing with is abstract and well defined. You can also do proofs in ways that are not possible in reality, like rigorous induction.

Often proofs are surprisingly simple. For example, we can say with certainty that every natural umber greater than 1 can be factored into a unique product of prime numbers and that there is no largest prime. The certainty is because it's really rather, simple, basic logic and the entities we are dealing with are well defined and abstract.

What's really fascinating is that this opens up a system so rich and complex, that it cannot be reduced to a complete set of axioms (unlike geometry).

I understand the point, but “abstractions that we effectively invent” as a claim still rests on axioms that may or may not be true. Who are this “we” exactly, how do “we” know we “invent” something and that we’re not, say, glorified SIMS characters programmed to believe we invent things instead? (Hasn’t Elon Musk said somewhere that he believes we live in a simulated universe?).

Of course these (and other, yet unimagined) possibilities may sound outlandish, but so did the claim of the Earth orbiting the sun sound outlandish to a pre-Copernican astronomer. This isn’t an argument tethered to particular claims – rather it’s the more fundamental, contextual argument that you can’t reasonably claim unqualified, “absolute” certainty about anything unless you’re also omniscient. “Certain”, “absolute” etc are fine when used colloquially and functionally (I'll risk my life on taking a flight because I'm "certain" that aerodynamics is a real thing for example), but not it in the strict epistemic sense.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your concept of "pure logic" is entirely derived from perceived premisses.  You need to verify whether certain premisses are entirely valid before you can claim absolute proof.

For example your rejection of the concept of human free will is entirely dependent on the premiss of everything existing and conforming to the time dimension perceived within our material universe.  You ignore the possibility that this universe came into existence from a source outside the time dimension, and that this source would have the power to allow us to override the perceived restrictions of time in order to facilitate the consciously driven freedom we all enjoy.

Several basic mistakes there that you’ll just ignore even if I explain them to you. Suffice it to say therefore that your argument is identical to me dismissing your belief that women give birth to babies because you just ignore the possibility that storks deliver them instead.

This should give you pause at least. It won’t, but it should.   

[Stranger]

I understand the point, but “abstractions that we effectively invent” as a claim still rests on axioms that may or may not be true. Who are this “we” exactly, how do “we” know we “invent” something and that we’re not, say, glorified SIMS characters programmed to believe we invent things instead? (Hasn’t Elon Musk said somewhere that he believes we live in a simulated universe?).

It wouldn't really matter. Numbers are abstracted from our experience, regardless of if it's real or simulated. Once they become abstractions, they are well-defined even if they don't correspond with an actual reality.

We don't really even need the experience. We can just make up the empty set, and construct the natural numbers from that. My signature tells you how to do that.   

Effectively, all we are using is logic. You can question logic itself, I guess, but then we might as well just give up. And, of course, your own argument is undermined as well.

[jeremyp]

but still its conclusions are only as reliable as the axioms on which it rests. It gives you “absolute” truths only inasmuch as its axioms are true

Absolutely, but we effectively define the axioms as true. Therefore they are always reliable - unless two of them are mutually logically contradictory. Reliability only comes into it when we start claiming that the system models something in the real world.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

It wouldn't really matter. Numbers are abstracted from our experience, regardless of if it's real or simulated. Once they become abstractions, they are well-defined even if they don't correspond with an actual reality.

We don't really even need the experience. We can just make up the empty set, and construct the natural numbers from that. My signature tells you how to do that.   

Effectively, all we are using is logic. You can question logic itself, I guess, but then we might as well just give up. And, of course, your own argument is undermined as well.

Oh I know it wouldn’t “really” matter in a practical sense at all. Even if advanced aliens had just programmed us to think 2+2=4, and programmed us too just to perceive that two rocks added to two more rocks produces a pile of four rocks, nonetheless we’d still have to proceed as if we were certain about that. In that sense the conversation is entirely academic, and of no real world value at all.   

One of the ironies about religious beliefs by the way is that often the more flimsy the evidence for them, the greater the certainty that the beliefs are correct. AB’s justifying arguments for his god are an unrelenting fallacy-fest for example, yet he’s also told us (apparently proudly) that no amount of reason or evidence could ever dissuade him from them. Go figure. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

Absolutely, but we effectively define the axioms as true. Therefore they are always reliable - unless two of them are mutually logically contradictory. Reliability only comes into it when we start claiming that the system models something in the real world.

Yes I know, and real world experience then affirms that the axioms are true – otherwise the ‘planes wouldn’t fly and the medicines wouldn’t cure. But only to a point. They are “always reliable” only to the extent that we’ve tested them and found them reliable, but not necessarily so – ie, the black swan problem of inductive reasoning. What though if one day ‘planes all flew to the moon and medicines turned into pumpkins instead?

What reason and evidence can only give is it “true enough”, rather than “true absolutely with no possibility of being not true” – which was the only point I was making.         

[Stranger]

Yes I know, and real world experience then affirms that the axioms are true – otherwise the ‘planes wouldn’t fly and the medicines wouldn’t cure. But only to a point. They are “always reliable” only to the extent that we’ve tested them and found them reliable, but not necessarily so – ie, the black swan problem of inductive reasoning. What though if one day ‘planes all flew to the moon and medicines turned into pumpkins instead?

What reason and evidence can only give is it “true enough”, rather than “true absolutely with no possibility of being not true” – which was the only point I was making.       

You still seem to have missed the point. We actually know that Euclidean geometry is not generally true in the real world. It's a good enough approximation to be useful but, in essence, it's an abstract system that stands by itself, regardless of reality.

There is plenty in pure mathematics that doesn't relate to the real world at all.

We can, for example, prove that some infinities are bigger than others. Good luck with testing that in the real world.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

You still seem to have missed the point. We actually know that Euclidean geometry is not generally true in the real world. It's a good enough approximation to be useful but, in essence, it's an abstract system that stands by itself, regardless of reality.

There is plenty in pure mathematics that doesn't relate to the real world at all.

We can, for example, prove that some infinities are bigger than others. Good luck with testing that in the real world.

Again, why do you think that? You think that because every scrap of the biological you finds it to be compelling. And I agree with you about that. Your ability to know that though is also delimited by your biological constraints, as is mine. That's the point. We can never be sure – absolutely, categorically, beyond any possibility of being wrong sure – about anything unless we're also omniscient. And I don't think omniscience is a claim you're making.

Short version: any model of reality is only as reliable as our ability to determine such a thing.         

[Stranger]

Again, why do you think that? You think that because every scrap of the biological you finds it to be compelling. And I agree with you about that. Your ability to know that though is also delimited by your biological constraints, as is mine. That's the point. We can never be sure –absolutely, categorically, beyond any possibility of being wrong sure – about that unless we're also omniscient. And I don't think omniscience is a claim you're making.

Short version: any model of reality is only as reliable as our ability to determine such a thing.       

But mathematics isn't a model of reality. You can use it to make models of reality, but that's not what it is. Once you accept logic, you are basically accepting mathematical conclusions as certain. This is because the 'premises' in a mathematical argument (axioms) are true by definition. There is no question of soundness, only validity.

You can claim that we can't be certain of logic itself if you want, but obviously there is no logical argument for that - it would be self-defeating. I guess the point is that logic and mathematics exist at the same level of certainty, and that is much greater than anything we can say about the real world.

For example, we can start with the axioms of set theory and construct the natural numbers, that do appear to correspond to the world, but they 'exist' within the system we've created, regardless. We can go from there to negative numbers, rationals, and (with a lot more effort) real numbers. People actually disagree about whether the 'real numbers' actually correspond to anything real (really!). Then we can head off into complex numbers. Does √(-1) correspond to anything real? We seem to need it for quantum mechanics, but really?

When we get to the transfinite numbers—especially beyond continuum infinity—we might seriously question any connection with reality.

I could go on to even more exotic ideas and concepts, but surely you see that we've created an abstract construct of pure logic that happens to seem to correspond to some parts of reality.... maybe. But it exists and is certain on its own terms regardless.

[jeremyp]

jeremyp,

Yes I know, and real world experience then affirms that the axioms are true – otherwise the ‘planes wouldn’t fly and the medicines wouldn’t cure. But only to a point. They are “always reliable” only to the extent that we’ve tested them and found them reliable, but not necessarily so – ie, the black swan problem of inductive reasoning. What though if one day ‘planes all flew to the moon and medicines turned into pumpkins instead?

What reason and evidence can only give is it “true enough”, rather than “true absolutely with no possibility of being not true” – which was the only point I was making.       

No. You are not getting it.

You don't need to know that the axioms are true in the sense of accurately modelling the real world to be able to show that mathematical theorems really are 100% absolute truth.

Let's assume that we believe the axioms of geometry including the parallel postulate to be true, as the ancients did. I can then give you a proof that the internal angles of a triangle add up to two right angles, built on the axioms. Let's call the statement "the axioms of plane geometry are true" A and the statement "the internal angles of a triangle add up to two right angles" T.

If we don't know that A is true, then we don't know that T is true but we do know that the statement "if A then T" is true because I've given you a logical proof that leads from A to T. Do you understand the fundamental difference between the three statements "P is true", "Q is true" and "(P implies Q) is true"?

All of maths is like this. Any time you see a mathematical theorem like "there is no largest prime number", you know this is really shorthand for "if X then there is no largest prime number" where X is a set of axioms that are assumed.

[Alan Burns]

I see you still haven't been arsed to learn anything about logic and critical thinking....

I have yet to see a feasible explanation for how critical thinking can take place without our freedom to consciously guide the thought processes involved in reaching consciously verified conclusions.  A freedom which your flawed logic denies.  How can you possibly give credence to the inevitable consequences of whatever drops out from physically driven brain cells?

[Stranger]

I have yet to see a feasible explanation for how critical thinking can take place without our freedom to consciously guide the thought processes involved in reaching consciously verified conclusions.

Your failure to understand or imagine is not an argument, and you're still making the silly mistake of conflating consciousness with your nonsense version of free will. You have established no logical connection.

A freedom which your flawed logic denies.

Asserting something is flawed without pointing to a flaw is nothing but childish foot-stamping. It's not "my logic", it's just logic, and it says nothing about "conscious control" at all.

How can you possibly give credence to the inevitable consequences of whatever drops out from physically driven brain cells?

What's the problem? Brains are reasonably good at thinking (some of them, anyway).

Why do you continue to refuse to learn critical thinking to avoid making dimwitted mistakes (fallacies)? Mastering one logic-based subject does not make you an expert in other logic-based subjects. Critical thinking requires you to learn about the specifics, not just the logical thought that you need for computing, which (IIRC) is your subject.

[ekim]

I have yet to see a feasible explanation for how critical thinking can take place without our freedom to consciously guide the thought processes involved in reaching consciously verified conclusions.  A freedom which your flawed logic denies.  How can you possibly give credence to the inevitable consequences of whatever drops out from physically driven brain cells?

You could try looking at your difficulty from a different angle.  I think most people would agree that we have an ability to choose.  You could call this intelligence ( from the Latin - choose between).  Logic and scientific method are a means of sharpening up the thought processes associated with that choice.  What you seem unable to see is the emotional desires which can drive choices and therefor impose upon the notion of freedom you have.  You could say that there is an emotional intelligence which allows the ability to choose between emotional drives, e.g. the drive to survive or to self sacrifice for a greater desire, but your notion of freedom is still not supported.  The Bible indicates that Jesus had the desire to avoid his imminent death but his choice was based upon the desire to surrender to the will of the God he believed in.  Que sera sera!

[Alan Burns]

Your failure to understand or imagine is not an argument, and you're still making the silly mistake of conflating consciousness with your nonsense version of free will. You have established no logical connection.

Asserting something is flawed without pointing to a flaw is nothing but childish foot-stamping. It's not "my logic", it's just logic, and it says nothing about "conscious control" at all.

What's the problem? Brains are reasonably good at thinking (some of them, anyway).

Why do you continue to refuse to learn critical thinking to avoid making dimwitted mistakes (fallacies)? Mastering one logic-based subject does not make you an expert in other logic-based subjects. Critical thinking requires you to learn about the specifics, not just the logical thought that you need for computing, which (IIRC) is your subject.

You vastly underestimate the role of conscious control.
Can you not see that it is essential for any form of critical thinking?
Can you not see the logical impossibility for conscious control to take place in the entirely materialistic time related cause and effect scenario?

[Outrider]

You vastly underestimate the role of conscious control.

You keep thinking conscious control is actually a thing when it's been shown to you that it's an illusion.

Can you not see that it is essential for any form of critical thinking?

No it isn't.

Can you not see the logical impossibility for conscious control to take place in the entirely materialistic time related cause and effect scenario?

Yes. Yes we can. You, apparently, can't, because you keep suggesting that it's a thing despite all the evidence pointing to us living in an entirely material, cause and effect scenario.

O.

[Stranger]

You vastly underestimate the role of conscious control.

Vacuous and irrelevant assertion fallacy. As I said, the logic that rules out your self-contradictory version of 'free-will' does not involve consciousness at all. Your nonsense version of free will is impossible, regardless of what role consciousness plays in choice-making.

Can you not see that it is essential for any form of critical thinking?

No. And it's irrelevant to the question of 'free will' anyway.

Can you not see the logical impossibility for conscious control to take place in the entirely materialistic time related cause and effect scenario?

No. You have provided no logical reasoning that supports this foolish assertion fallacy. In fact, you've provided no logical reasoning at all, because you seem to be too frightened, stupid, or lazy to learn how logic is applied to arguments like this and how to avoid obvious fallacies.

Honestly, do you think because you've studied and worked in one discipline that requires logic, you can just walk into any such discipline without learning anything about the specific subject? Do you think yourself automatically a master of (say) physics and mathematics, as well as critical thinking?

Remember posting a puzzle from Mensa a while back (#42625)? Looks like I didn't get round to mentioning it at the time, but if you'd have known the relevant mathematics, you'd have recognised it as a linear Diophantine equation. There are perfectly algorithmic (if somewhat tedious) ways to solve those.

My point is, that if you don't know about the relevant specific subject, things are much more difficult than they need to be and the risk of making novice mistakes is large.

In the realm of critical thinking, you keep on making silly, novice mistakes (largely widely known fallacies) and you don't even seem to care. What is it? Fear, arrogance, complacency, laziness, what? Why don't you think you need to learn anything about the subject at hand?

Maybe you've just given up on learning all together? That would be sad. I've learnt quite a lot that I didn't know when I was last posting at the end of last year. I'd be very disappointed if I hadn't.

I read a very interesting book on consciousness recently, Being You by Anil Seth. Here is somebody who has obviously applied a lot of thought to the subject and is actively working in the area (he's a neuroscientist). It was a massive contrast to your shallow, almost childish, assumptions, inept 'arguments', blind faith, and total lack of even indicative evidence. He also doesn't claim that his hypotheses must be true, despite having far, far better reasoning, and way more evidence than you have. He doesn't say much about free will but dismisses the nonsense version you are proposing in much the same way as I do, and calls it "an incoherent solution to a problem that doesn’t exist".

Perhaps it's time that you learnt about other ideas about consciousness and free will, as well as critical thinking?

[ekim]

In the realm of critical thinking, you keep on making silly, novice mistakes (largely widely known fallacies) and you don't even seem to care. What is it? Fear, arrogance, complacency, laziness, what?

... or possibly the result of religious indoctrination e.g. the notion of 'God given free will'.  Indoctrination like addiction can often be difficult to break free from and is used in many walks of life, by those with the power to do so, to impose upon the ability to choose so that controlled 'flock think' takes over.

[Nearly Sane]

... or possibly the result of religious indoctrination e.g. the notion of 'God given free will'.  Indoctrination like addiction can often be difficult to break free from and is used in many walks of life, by those with the power to do so, to impose upon the ability to choose so that controlled 'flock think' takes over.

I think it's worth adding in that in general we talk about free will on a day to day level as if it exists.

[jeremyp]

I think it's worth adding in that in general we talk about free will on a day to day level as if it exists.

We also talk about the Sun on a day to day basis as if it goes round the Earth.

[Alan Burns]

I think it's worth adding in that in general we talk about free will on a day to day level as if it exists.

Our freedom to talk about it is all the proof you need to know that your free will is a reality.
No amount of convoluted critical thinking can take away this simple truth.

[Nearly Sane]

Our freedom to talk about it is all the proof you need to know that your free will is a reality.
No amount of convoluted critical thinking can take away this simple truth.

You manage to beg the question in 2 words. That's almost impressive.

[jeremyp]

Our freedom to talk about it is all the proof you need to know that your free will is a reality.

How do you know you are free to talk about it or not talk about it?

After all, you didn't post that message in a vacuum: you posted it in response to reading previous posts. You don't know that posting it wasn't inevitable given the structure and state of your brain and the external stimuli (i.e. other people's posts).

No amount of convoluted critical thinking can take away this simple truth.

Critical thinking is not convoluted. You should try it some day.

[Stranger]

Our freedom to talk about it is all the proof you need to know that your free will is a reality.
No amount of convoluted critical thinking can take away this simple truth.

And you actually think this is remotely rational or logical?

[Nearly Sane]

And you actually think this is remotely rational or logical?

I think given Alan's repeated postings, it is something that he can't believe we don't agree with because it's so obviously 'rational' and 'logical' to him. I suspect that many people would agree with him, and that we all act as if his view of free will is true. I think in many ways I am in agreement with your Anil Seth quote about it being an incoherent solution to a problem that doesn't exist but I think Alan would just think it is an entirely coherent solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Alan Burns]

And you actually think this is remotely rational or logical?

I entirely agree that to contemplate this with our limited knowledge of reality will lead to the inevitable conclusion that our freedom to consciously control our own thought processes is a logical impossibility.  But the fact that we are able to consciously reach such a conclusion defies the conclusion itself.  The only conclusion we can have is that we do not know enough about reality to be able to make such a conclusion.