Questioning general philosophical arguments
I wanted to ask about philosophical arguments like ‘every complex has a component’, and similar ones, isn’t it a bit far-fetched to apply our everyday laws to things we have no experience with at all? Suppose the world is complex (even though the definition is not really clear), isn’t it exaggerated and dubious to say that the entire world has a component, while the only rational complexes we know of are those of humans? That is, suppose (without any reason, purely theoretically), that the idea that the world has a component necessarily also means that the entire reality of our senses is a lie, that there are exactly 888 unicorns behind my back as I type, and all sorts of other delusional things that are clearly unlikely to be true, how likely is it that the world has a component this time? Not at all unlikely. Now, what I’m arguing is that the very fact that the world is so big that it couldn’t have been created by humans is strong enough to automatically rule out these arguments. The thing with unicorns is that if the world has a component, it is necessarily stronger than anything we know (because it created the entire world), and is necessarily not just one of all the biological life we have ever known. So, I don’t understand how this calculation can be made, is it likely that there is a component because of the assumption that every complex has a component.
After all, if the fact that there is a component also means many other, fanciful things that are clearly unlikely to be true, it is unlikely that there is a component. So I ask – why is the mere fact that the existence of a component necessarily means that it contradicts all our acquaintance with reason, not enough to reject it on the grounds of improbability?
A few points:
- Even in the scientific context, when we find some natural law here with us, we assume that it is also true in the rest of the universe, even though we haven’t tested it. This is a completely reasonable assumption, even if uncertain. If it is disproved, then we will abandon it, but it is a common sense assumption. The same is true on the philosophical level. By the way, the assumption of causality is an assumption of science, not just of philosophy.
- The assumption of causality is not the result of observation but an a priori insight (synthetic-a priori, in Kant’s terminology). Therefore, in principle, it is always applicable to everything, and not necessarily to a particular type of thing that we have experience of, unless proven otherwise. This applies both to complex things (not just objects in our world) and to their components (not just people).
- The fact that every complex has a component (meaning that it did not come into being by itself) is a very logical statistical-mathematical consideration, and therefore it is clear that it is reasonable to apply it everywhere and to everything. Mathematics is always correct.
As a result of all this, there is indeed no certainty in these assumptions, but the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.
Where does the Rabbi go into depth about the mathematical statistical consideration?
What is there to delve into? It has no depth. An improbable complex thing created without a guiding hand. There is an explanation in the first premise, if at all. This is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.
I believe that something complex is unlikely to have been created without a guiding hand, but these are words, not mathematics and statistics. Did the Rabbi explain mathematics and statistics in the section on thermodynamics in the first Matzoi?
Also, is Newton's second law, which states that any body without a force continues to move in a uniform motion in a straight line, just words and not a law in physics? It's completely mathematics even if you have no way to do an exact calculation. You can do a calculation on a model and ask yourself what the chances are that a certain thing will be created by chance and be convinced of this mathematical idea. I explained it there, but you won't find higher mathematics there, and you don't need to. Some people think that mathematics is formulas, but they are wrong. Mathematics is ideas, which are often expressed in formulas.
I agree, but still in translating the words into mathematics it gives me another test of how justified the opinion is. That's why I want to understand what exactly the statistics and mathematics you meant.
I remember in the first stanza calculations of the probability of a protein chain of such and such length. Is that the mathematics you meant?
yes
The assumption that every complex has a component is reasonable, but not when we are given certainty that the component is different from anything we have ever known. That is exactly my problem and that is the argument.
This also applies to natural laws – It is true that they are assumed to be true everywhere in the universe, but if we are given that together with the truth of a certain law there will be a very significant and extreme change that we have never observed in a certain place, I do not think that we should assume that this change really happens. What I am saying is that it is necessary to prove that something so different from our familiarity with reality can exist in order to assume that the entire world has a component if this component is necessarily very different from any component that we know. Also from a mathematical point – The more the implications of a law for a certain point contradict our familiarity with the world – the less likely that this law is true for that point.
Well, that's just an insistence. I have nothing to add.
Ohad,
Your assumption that there is “something so different from our knowledge of reality” is based on the assumption that there is “reality” (the universe), there is something beyond it, and you yourself are able to cross the boundary line between the two and evaluate the logical relationship between the two arenas. Then you come to an agnostic conclusion – We have no ability to evaluate what that thing is beyond reality.
In other words, you put yourself in exactly the same place as your opponent who claims that he also understands the relationship between the two arenas (he assumes that it is a causal relationship between Creator and creature) but unlike him, you refuse a priori to commit to the existence of any a priori knowledge. In my opinion, this is a paradox.
This is not an insistence, there is no doubt that mathematics is always correct. The problem comes when it says something that completely contradicts all of our experience. Shall we just accept it?
But yes, it totally leads to agnosticism.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
