Restating the Paradox

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a scientist so I can't give you a direct answer. But Hume would say that evidence of order presupposes an assumption of UP. One of his most significant assertions is "There is no necessary connection between cause and effect". You see a billiard ball strike another billiard ball and the second ball moves. Cause and effect. Order. But Hume says you only call it order because you've seen many instances of ball striking ball and so your judgement of order is because of custom or habit. From a strictly logical standpoint it wouldn't matter if you could assign cause and effect to everything in the universe. It would all be in the past. And you can't prove(rationally justify) the future will be like the past without assuming UP.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this where Mr Bayes steps in - not with proof but with rational justification.

I've already mentioned that science can avoid belief in truths (should attribute this to Mr Popper) and be a purely deductive method.

From the little I've read I understand that Popper and Bayes are the standard modern response to Hume. Maybe Mr Bayes' representative on earth would like to comment.

chez

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it's physically finite, the chances are infinite if time is eternal.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends in two ways. First, the Universe being eternal does not depend on whether or not it's ordered. Those are separate issues. Second, if the Universe IS ordered, possibilities are not infinite *even* if the Universe is eternal since possibilities are limited by natural laws. Remember, we're *not* talking about an infinite *quantity* of events, but an infinite number of *kinds* of events (this is important). So just saying "the Universe is eternal" is not a complete argument.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I wanted to define what we mean by God before proceeding. If God isn't as I described He isn't God. There is something greater than Him, whether another being, fixed impersonal law, or chance. I only agree with your statement of 1 if God is at least as I stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, you're artificially limiting the scope of the argument and it's no longer meaningful. It's like saying:

If (John exists and is the only person who could put this pen on my desk) then (the pen being on my desk = evidence for John). Since there are certainly other possible premises that could lead to that conclusion, artificially restricting the premises invalidates the entire argument. I think that's a fairly straightforward concept.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
From the little I've read I understand that Popper and Bayes are the standard modern response to Hume

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand about Popper all he did was say that it doesn't matter if Hume was right, science works so rational justification isn't necessary. Neither Hume nor I disagree with that. But that isn't a rational justification. I don't see any possible way Bayes' theorem of probablity can counter the proposition that probability can't prove UP becaus it assumes UP in the first place.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

First, the Universe being eternal does not depend on whether or not it's ordered.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this as a theoretical position but don't see the relevance. I don't think I've tried to make this case.

[ QUOTE ]

Second, if the Universe IS ordered, possibilities are not infinite *even* if the Universe is eternal since possibilities are limited by natural laws.


[/ QUOTE ]

This once again assumes the UP. You limit the number of possibilities by assuming order in nature then use that to prove order in nature.

[ QUOTE ]

In that case, you're artificially limiting the scope of the argument and it's no longer meaningful.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not artificial. You proposed an argument containg the word God to a Christian without defining the word. Now you don't want to define the word the way you ought to have known a Christian would define it. My definiton of the word God is "the God of the Bible", not some impersonal life force or a group of aliens from Alpha Centauri. That's not artificial. Maintaining there is an infinite number of possibilities, any of which could correctly be labeled "God" is artificial.

[jthegreat]

I will get back to this tomorrow or Monday.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the little I've read I understand that Popper and Bayes are the standard modern response to Hume

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand about Popper all he did was say that it doesn't matter if Hume was right, science works so rational justification isn't necessary. Neither Hume nor I disagree with that. But that isn't a rational justification. I don't see any possible way Bayes' theorem of probablity can counter the proposition that probability can't prove UP becaus it assumes UP in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Popper definitely did not say that. He argued (correctly me thinks) that science never makes claims of truth about the world, it only offers provisional hypothesis. Science in this view is purely deductive and avoids the problem of induction by simply recognising that induction isn't known to be reliable.

Bayes makes an attempt to make rational inferences without recourse to cause and effect and hence make the problem of induction irrelevent. I suspect this attempt fails to some extent but I was hoping to prompt someone more expert to explain (especially as Bayes seems to be worshiped by some).

Of course, Bayes was long after Hume so if he did add something important it wouldn't make sense to see Hume as the current best endpoint).

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He argued (correctly me thinks) that science never makes claims of truth about the world, it only offers provisional hypothesis. Science in this view is purely deductive and avoids the problem of induction by simply recognising that induction isn't known to be reliable.


[/ QUOTE ]

So evolution IS just an hypothesis. If only we had known this earlier how much argument could have been avoided. And this is the first time I've ever seen science called pure deduction.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He argued (correctly me thinks) that science never makes claims of truth about the world, it only offers provisional hypothesis. Science in this view is purely deductive and avoids the problem of induction by simply recognising that induction isn't known to be reliable.


[/ QUOTE ]

So evolution IS just an hypothesis. If only we had known this earlier how much argument could have been avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]
of course evolution is a hypothesis, developed in part through a continued attempt to falsify it - that's science.

[ QUOTE ]
And this is the first time I've ever seen science called pure deduction.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did mention it earlier in this thread - how could you miss it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Read about Popper, its not clear cut (what is) but I don't think you'll disagree with the basic idea.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

of course evolution is a hypothesis, developed in part through a continued attempt to falsify it - that's science.


[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to hear it. Please tell Sagan. You may need the services of a medium.

[ QUOTE ]

I did mention it earlier in this thread - how could you miss it


[/ QUOTE ]

Thought it was a typo.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

of course evolution is a hypothesis, developed in part through a continued attempt to falsify it - that's science.


[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to hear it. Please tell Sagan. You may need the services of a medium.

[ QUOTE ]

I did mention it earlier in this thread - how could you miss it


[/ QUOTE ]

Thought it was a typo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've said it too often now so if its wrong I can't get away with claiming its a type [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Not sure what Sagan said but from the context I gather he was making a claim that the scientific hypothesis of evloution is correct. He may or may not be able to justify this claim but the justification will not be a scientifc one.

chez