Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006
|
Logic Genius has questions:
Question 1 for Sean Carroll:
[QUOTE]
1. In your article, you’ve argued that the ultimate explanation of why events happen is that things are simply obeying the laws of nature – in particular, the laws of physics. What do you mean by the term “law of nature”? Specifically, are the laws of nature (a) rules which prescribe the behavior of objects, or (b) mere regularities which describe the behavior of objects?
Only an IDiot would think a Law of Nature has any requirement for an Intelligent Legislator. Let us say (b)
| Quote | | 2. Do you believe that rules, which prescribe the behavior of objects, are a fundamental and irreducible feature of the cosmos, even in the absence of human observers? |
2 is based on premise (a). Try again.
| Quote | | 3. If your answer to question 2 is “Yes,” then blah blah blah |
It wasn't.
| Quote | | 4. If your answer to question 2 is “No,” |
2 was not a valid question. However, the subsequent part can be asked as
| Quote | | and rules are not a fundamental feature of the cosmos, |
Not very careful, is he? The rules seem to have lost the prescribe/describe distinction...
| Quote | | then why is it rational for scientists to believe that the universe will continue to conform to the laws of nature in the future, instead of violating them? Specifically, why should I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow at the forecast time, when there is no rule saying that it should rise, and when there are innumerable ways in which it could fail to do so? |
There is a whole set of rules saying it will (Newtonian physics), rules which work. Rules which are not prescriptive but predictive because they are descriptive.
We see plainly that vjtorley does not really "get" what any science is all about. Ah well, let us go on to the last three even though they have nothing to do with the first four FAIL questions.
| Quote | | 5. You’ve stated that “All else being equal, a simpler scientific theory is preferred over a more complicated one,” and you’ve defined simplicity in terms of Kolmogorov simplicity: “The simplicity of a theory is a statement about how compactly we can describe the formal structure.” All very well and good. Now, supposing the cosmos to be the work of an infinitely wise and benevolent Creator, would you agree that we should expect the laws of the cosmos to exhibit the maximum degree of Kolmogorov simplicity compatible with the emergence of free and intelligent human beings? |
Non sequitur. Science is deciding between two descriptions which fit equally well to the universe. vjtorley is talking about two possible universes, one supposedly better than the other. For example, one could imagine a universe where only Newtonian physics held, and one like ours. The Newtonian one would be better because it is simpler? Or the Newtonian one would be more likely?
| Quote | | 6. [edited for brevity to get to the actual question] Would you agree that if scientists discovered that a universe with much-more-than-anthropic tuning has a much higher degree of Kolmogorov simplicity than a universe with just enough entropy to permit the emergence of intelligent human beings, this discovery would constitute a striking confirmation of the hypothesis that the cosmos is the work of an infinitely wise and benevolent Creator? Would you also agree that the best way to answer questions like “Why does God favor three generations of elementary particles, with a wide spectrum of masses?” is to try and establish whether a universe built in this way exhibits a higher degree of Kolmogorov simplicity than one which does not? |
Based on vjtorley's confusion of simplicity of description vs simplicity of actual universe, which does not follow.
A simpler universe would have unsplitable nuclei for example, not to mention one with fewer atomic bombs.
| Quote | | 7. Using scientific terminology, can you rigorously define a set of laws of nature which: blah blah blah |
Actually can't be done, science does not prove things, nor can we be assured of a final answer. A good answer is better than a pretend made up philosophical one though, but that is just my bias I suppose. Adding a designer has no impact on the understanding, and in vjtorley's case inhibits understanding.
--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV
"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen
"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers
|
