yes, much more readable, and just as fatuous as the wall of text he made in reply to me.
1 Like
Since you mention these things, lets ask some questions based upon your words, bsengstock20.
Q. The Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem failed in 1998. Was this due to anything that was empirically sealed off from us?
A. No. It was due to the empirical discovery of a positive cosmological constant in our universe, which violated the physical assumptions of the theory.
Q. Was the theoremâs failure due to anything unobservable by us?
A. No. It was due to the entirely observable positive cosmological constant of our universe.
Q. Was the theoryâs failure due to anything that was causally disconnected from us?
A. No. For the same reasons as given above.
Q. Was the theoryâs failure due to anything that was inaccessible to measurement?
A. No. Our universeâs cosmological constant was measured then and has been again with increased accuracy.
Q. Was the theoryâs failure anything to do with Bohemian mechanics?
A. No. The measurements of the cosmological constant did not involve quantum mechanics and the theory itself is entirely classical, with quantum mechanics not even being considered.
So, can we agree that the Hawking - Penrose singularity theory of 1970 failed because of empirical, observed, causally connected, entirely classical evidence?
Thank you,
Walter.
Good darts sir, it is most definitely a trait of such apologists their spiel lacks any sort of clarity. I have asked repeatedly for the best reason he thinks he has that any deity exists, all I got back was vague claims about his arguments being rationally consistent, I am dubious that the conclusion god = objective reality can be argued rationally without begging the question somewhere, and it thus it certainly seemed to me like a false equivalence.
When I pointed out that methods like science can examine and test objective reality, but that this was not true of any deity, and asked if he could, he immediately tried to reverse the burden of proof, and insisted I demonstrate the negation of his claim, evidence the non existence of evidence as it were, pretty funny, but then who knows what an uneducated dullard like myself will be amused by.
Except one would have to make a raft of unevidenced assumptions first, and before you try and hide behind other methods like science doing this, their observations are testable, and falsifiable, and afterward reflect objective reality in a relentlessly reliable way, all you have is the argument proceeding from the initial assumptions, if I wanted to be very critical Iâd suggest the assumptions largely make the argument moot, who cares if what is behind the door is logically consistent, if you already assumed it must be possible, then why not decide it is a wizard with magic powers that we canât detect or test.
I apologise if I am wrong, as we have had a spate of apologists drifty through lately, but one of them certainly tried to say that Gödel had proved a god like being existed. I explained why that was not true and it never got addressed, it might not have been you of course.
How much value should we attached to a claim that is a) entirely unevidenced, and b) typifies the claims of countless religions & deities, and arriving at wildly different conclusions, the question is rhetorical if that helps.
Itâs not of course a binary condition, those truths become more reliable the more objectively verifiable evidence that supports them. However it is an objective fact that no deity has ever tried to convince me it exists let alone an omniscient and omnipotent one, which demonstrably could not fail.
It is unevidenced untestable and has no explanatory powers in terms of consciousness, odd youâd ask this when I have mentioned these objections to you several times already?
It took a couple of seconds to find that, now call me an uneducated dullard, oh you already did, but all the vast evidence we have suggest consciousness is an emergent property of an evolved brain, when the brain dies the consciousness disappears, forever, everyâŠsingleâŠtimeâŠwithoutâŠexception.
The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, by Roger Penrose. 2005.
Chapter 28, page 772. Cosmological parameters : observational status?
âWhat is the present observational position? Well, things have now shifted very significantly again, with the startling evidence (and from more than one source) that there seems to be a significant positive cosmological constant Lambda.
(Penroseâs italicization, not mine.)
You see, bsengstock20?
Nothing empirically sealed off, nothing unobservable, nothing causally disconnected and nothing inaccessible. No need to invoke Bohemian mechanics or metaphysics or modal logic.
The evidence came in, Penrose has accepted it and his 1970 singularity theorem was broken on the anvil of that evidence.
This is the clarity that comes with not making unwarranted assumptions or adding any spurious âifsâ.
Walter.
2 Likes
Another thought occurs to me and I throw this open to anyone.
In the context of empirical evidence causing the failure of the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem of 1970, what role does Occamâs Razor play, if any?
It seems to me that the issue is really a very simple one. That the theorem didnât stand or fall on anything metaphysical and never employed modal logic in the first place. So quite why these things need to be invoked to address the question of it being overturned by empirical evidence I do not know.
If entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity and it isnât necessary to go beyond the empirical and the physical to overturn the theorem, then why invoke anything beyond the empirical and the physical?
But I await the input of others on this question with interest.
Thank you,
Walter.
1 Like
Thatâs not the same logic at allâŠ
Formal axiom (Gödel-style, or modal logic context)
This is a conditional statement, not an assertion of fact.
It is analytic and structural: it tells you how properties behave in a logical system.
Its truth depends on the definitions of âpositive property,â ânecessity,â and the modal logic framework.
Itâs generalâit doesnât tell you whether any specific property exists; it just governs the relationships if certain properties exist.
Simple assertion (God is real)
This is a declarative statement, claiming a concrete fact about reality.
It is empirical/metaphysical, not a structural rule about properties.
There is no logical framework or conditional dependencyâitâs simply posited as true.
Why theyâre not the same
The formal axiom is meta-level: it talks about relationships between properties, not specific entities.
The simple assertion is object-level: it talks about a specific entity existing.
In other words: one is a rule of logic, the other is a factual claim.
It failed due to the fact that we only considered explicit claims and not implicit claims about the model (claims which Hawking - Penrose may not even have been aware of).
Yes, as provisional, but not for the same reasons.
Your position is that the Hawking - Penrose singularity theory of 1970 failed because of empirical, observed, causally connected, entirely classical evidence relative to our observation.
My position is that the Hawking - Penrose singularity theory of 1970 failed only because people failed to consider the entirety of the ramifications of its model: empirical, observed, causally connected, entirely classical evidence: relative to our observation and relative to things outside of our observation.
Yes, to an omnipresent, omniscient observer. But we are not that.
Godel âgod-like beingâ is equivalent to the term âGodâ, not to the term âdeityâ. Godel wasnât a proper theologian or philosopher, but a mathematician.
These are essential truths. You cannot claim to disagree with these truths essentially and call yourself rational.
I mean as far as the three axioms that I presented. Which of the three do you disagree with?
Ok. you disagree with axiom 3 (Higher-order properties of matter (i.e., emergent properties) can be reduced to their lower-level properties).
My objection: If reductive physicalism is false and reality is monistic, Consciousness â any lower-level physical property. Consciousness cannot be reduced to mere physical structure or function. The mental cannot be paraphrased away in purely physical terms. Identity theory and eliminativism are false.
You seem to have ignored what you quoted entirely?
Thatâs not what you asked:
You asked I answered. Itâs unevidenced, unfalsifiable, untestable, and in terms of consciousness has no explanatory powers.
1 Like
Again, these are essential truths. You cannot claim to disagree with these truths essentially and call yourself rational. Essential truths do not become more reliable the more objectively verifiable evidence that supports them. There are already as reliable as they can be.
Sigh
Concerning the three axiomsâŠ
So all one has to do is declare a âtruthâ to be âessentialâ and then anyone that does not accept that assertion can be labeled irrational? Nice gig you got there.
1 Like
No. You have to demonstrate it via modal logic. If you can, it is a truth that cannot be disputed.
Thatâs a pretty low bar. Just because something is possible says nothing about how probable it is, nor does it account for actual lived experience or observation.
I donât buy that anything is 100% beyond dispute.
1 Like
Itâs actually the highest bar. A modal truth cannot be just provisionally true but must be true essentially. It does not account for actual lived experience or observation because experience or observation are subject to the observer and, as beings who are limited in experience/observation, our experiences/observations are highly suspect.
And would these implicit claims have made any difference to the 1998 evidence overturning the 1970 theorem? By this question I do not mean any metaphysical difference. Instead, I mean any difference to the physics itself?
So, if other metaphysicists than yourself might have held to your position from the 70âs onwards, why is it that nothing has changed? The theorem remains overturned by the evidence. Besides the generation of some extra metaphysical hot air, what has changed?
You trimmed off the half of my words, thus making the half you did quote out of context.
Nothing empirically sealed off, nothing unobservable, nothing causally disconnected and nothing inaccessible. No need to invoke Bohemian mechanics or metaphysics or modal logic.
The evidence came in, Penrose has accepted it and his 1970 singularity theorem was broken on the anvil of that evidence.
The meaning of the full quote is clear. For the theorem to fail, all that was needed was empirical evidence. None of the other stuff. Which is just how science works. Thus, there was no need to bring an omniscient and omnipresent observer into the discussion.
While I applaud your cleverness in sneaking a god-like object into the discussion by the back door, its services really arenât needed. My point stands quite well when quoted in full, thank you very much.
Walter.
Modal logic, as I understand it, uses âpossible worldsâ reasoning. âEssentially trueâ assumes axiomatic things that may or may not prove out in actual reality.
What one does with the fact that no observation or experience is 100% objective, is not throw out observation and experience, but to maintain epistemological humility and surround yourself with systems that control for bias and misperception, in recognition that bias and misperception exist.
In any given situation it is possible that you are misinterpreting data or seeing data that isnât actually there, but one does not respond to that fact by elevating a theoretical / speculative proposition above, and beyond the reach of, experience and observation.
Yes, it would.
Many metaphysicists live too far within the realm of speculation and many metaphysicists would not understand the implicit claims made by Penrose. I venture that Penrose wasnât fully aware of the extent of his assertions.
Correction. All that was needed was incomplete empirical evidence. Scientists fall to this all the time (either unintentionally or intentionally).
If something exists in all possible worlds, it exists as essentially true. Essentially true means a truth that exists across all states as necessary.
And are you 100% sure that your statement is objectively true?
If you do, you admit to essential truths that are self-justified. If you donât, I can doubt your assertions based on provisional contingency.
And what can be asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason.
Not 100%, but pretty darn close.
No, I withhold belief in a truth that I donât see sufficient justification to believe. Big difference.
You can doubt my conclusions regardless. Fortunately I am only responsible for my own credulity.
Ironic that youâre trying to borrow that line from Hitchens and others when what you are doing is asserting things that you canât evidence or even coherently reason about. You canât demonstrate that God is a necessary entity to anything. You can only claim it.
Oddly enough, in rejecting theism some thirty years ago, leaving God out of my thinking has improved rather than impeded my understanding of all matters both personal and professional. YMMV.
1 Like
How? Or better yet, please cite some historical examples of where classical physics has been changed in the way you assert.
Re-correction. ALL empirical evidence is incomplete.
But that doesnât stop science working well enough as it is.
Oh and I do agree with your sentiment, bsengstock20. Many metaphysicists DO live too far within the realm of speculation.
Thank you,
Walter.