Evidence, Non-Cog, et al.

[daedalus 2.0]

I moved this to philosophy since it was a little more appropriate, but also because the original topic was getting some good traffic and I didn't want to interupt the flow (or have our flow interupted!)

Here is the last post by Jester:

See how if "1" isn't finalized you can't assume 2 & 3?

Likewise:
1. Energy is … energy?
2. Energy is convertible into different tyes.
3. Energy alters the state of motion of objects.
This is a clear example of “1” not being finalized, yet 2 & 3 being assumed.

One more example would be (of course):
1. Matter is ... matter?
2. Matter is tangible
3. Matter is affected by gravitation.

Again, if you feel I missed a point you really thought was crucial,, let me know.

None comes to mind just yet. Actually, I’m glad you trimmed this one down, it was getting to be a big project each time (Not that I didn’t enjoy it).

I feel that this excerpt is the crux, and I realize that I have interjected too much anti-presupositionalism: i.e., I have asked for evidence that, say, Matt built the house.

The NC p.o.v. isn't concerned with evidence, other than the basic epistemology.

Sounds reasonable, and I definitely agree that, even if we establish that claims about God “sensical”, evidence is still a major issue.

I see exactly what you mean by inserting Matter or Energy, instead of God.

So, if you don't mind, I would like to focus on this because I feel it most challenging (to my understanding of NC).

Sounds great.

So:
I could define these terms, but I don't want to rest on common definitions, but press a larger issue, however, I am willing to let these definitions stand for now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
(Forgive my reference to Wiki!)

I actually don’t mind it at all.
I like these definitions, insofar as they are accurate enough for our purposes (though I have a related issue I’ll take up later).

Here's the thing.

E=mc^2

N_A = (6.022 \, 141 \, 79\pm 0.000 \, 000 \, 30)\,\times\,10^{23} \mbox{ mol}^{-1} \, (Avogadro constant)

Brownian Motion

and other discovered Laws about our universe have been tested and verified. Matter and Energy only make sense through the regular and reliable outcome of what our universe seems to be.

This is absolutely true, but it is only intelligible to those who understand the process. To anyone who is sufficiently ignorant of science, it is effectively magic. It may work, but a scientific statement communicates nothing. It may as well be gibberish.
This enters the debate in that the inverse is true. Something may communicate meaning without being scientifically established or detailed in its description.
I merely wanted to draw a line between specifity of definition and intelligibility of communication. My position is that they are related, but not synonymous (actually, I don’t really believe that you disagree, just wanted to make the distinction is all).

There is no question in my mind that Matter and Energy have been calculated and studied in far more accuracy and authority than "God" or gods.

I think there’s actually a fair body of evidence opposed to that position if we don’t limit “study” to the scientific. Assuming that we do, however, this is true. My only objection would be that something need not be studied accurately to be an intelligible concept, but rather be defined clearly (though not-necessarily specifically, as mentioned above). In fact, a clear definition is a prerequisite to study as much or more than a result of it. Thus, the amount of study that has gone into God is somewhat irrelevant to the issue.

To deny the fact that energy or matter exist is to make a claim so bold as to border on lunacy.

This is the only statement that I almost completely disagree with. (But don’t get me wrong; I believe that matter an energy exist!) Not only is it a very old philosophical point that neither matter nor energy (nor anything else) have been logically validated to exist, but the entire issue of existence trails off the point of intelligibility. The question, for the moment, isn’t “do they exist?”, but “are we envisioning the same thing as one another when we speak of them?”.
Of course, I suppose we’re allowed a tangent or two, particularly if they’re interesting ones.

Energy: The ability to do Work. We can look at Work any number of mathematical ways, and I think there is a clear understanding.

Mostly clear from an intuitive perspective, but there is a very big problem with this definition that has frustrated physicists for centuries. Simply put, “work” is defined as the transfer of energy (even the math depends on this definition). Given such a cyclical description, many have accused the term energy of being little more than nonsense.
I personally wouldn’t go that far. The fact is that it is the best definition we have, and experience tells us that the term energy is basically understood from one person to the next (hence, it is intelligible). Thus, we can comment on energy and what it does in spite of our obviously lacking definition. Surely, we could comment further with a better definition (and I will applaud the physicist who finds one), but we cannot refer to the terms as utter nonsense in that they clearly communicate a great deal.

Matter: This is more difficult, and surely, most Theists will focus on this. However, I don't think either of us deny Matter exists as something that "takes up space", or some such definition. Metaphysically, Matter has presence in our Universe and Existence. Not in the same way as God - as in, Matter makes up the bus that hit my grandma, kind of thing.

I agree with the notion that matter is more experiential in nature than God is (though I hope a bus never hits my grandma). My main issue is that “experiential” does not necessarily equate any greater likelihood of existence nor a greater likelihood of intelligibility.
More directly, your comment above points out something I believe to be simple but insightful: The fact that we can make clear statements to another person regarding matter that allow him/her to understand the intent of our comment reasonably well establishes that the term “matter” as intelligible. I believe that essentially the same can be said of God, making the issue of God a debate over whether or not this thing we’re talking about actually exists, rather than a debate over whether or not we’re talking about even remotely the same thing.

I think those are all the thoughts I have on the issue.
I suppose I’ll add another comment if something occurs to me, but I’ve had a twelve hour flight today (Taipei to Los Angeles), so I’m about fried.

I think the whole weight of Non-Cog comes down to the issues imbedded in this latest round.

Since we are both short of time, I will condense my thoughts and we can expand if needed.

1. Energy = the ability to do work.
2. Matter is difficult to define, however, there are any number of mathematical formulas that give predictable results. (I know Quantum Mechanics might be brought up, but I can't say I understand QM and I would guess that few people do - that is, even Quatum scientists say they don't understand it. Which may be a nice illustration.)
3. I think we differ in how much information is conveyed by the terms we are using (Matter, Energy, God).

For the purposes of simplicity, I will reduce it to the two classics: Matter vs. God!

(Not that they have to be, but you see what I'm saying).

And we aren't determining if they exist right now, only that they can hold properties that we attribute to them as to make them intelligible.

I have diregarded evidence (since I believe that that difference alone is enough - that is: I can describe Matter as something that takes up space and makes a bowl. I know you will confirm that the bowl exists, and by that nature, Matter exists - and, likewise, I will know that the term "bowl" is intelligible.)




argh, gotta go -

[daedalus 2.0]

OK, back.

Here's the thing. Instead of defining "Intelligibility" lets at least come to an agreement on what we find intelligible.

For example:
Circle
Wood
Guitar
Affection
Gravity

I find those terms intelligible.

Not that we need an exhaustive list, but I think we should have categories, maybe.

physical
conceptual
emotional

The idea is to put all of the things we find intelligible into perse+pective with the things we don't, and the things we're not sure.

For example, I don't accept anything supernatural. I understand Natural, I simply don't understand what something is when it is defined as "above" Natural. Can things be below Nature? Subnatural?

I simply have no understanding of that.

I think I MAY understanding "magic" but is that the same as supernatural? What is the distinction?

I think I understand "unicorn" - a horn with a horn... and magic blood: see above.

While I understand the philosophy to reduce everything to the unknowable, I actually think that things are intelligible.

So, "god" is as intelligible as "circle", "bench" or "anger"? And if not, why not, and if so, what am I missing?