Toward an Intelligent Design Science

[James Putnam]

I think that theoretical physics does not describe the nature of the universe. I was recently questioned about something I had written. I feel the response I gave was concise and representative of my point of view. It does not include mathematics except f=ma. I think that theoretical physics, as currently formulated, is fundamentally flawed. Even if it were corrected it would be useful only for solving mechanical problems. My intent is to show it should not be relied upon for understanding the nature of the universe. The true nature is something very different.

 

I WROTE:

 

Physics theory used to depend upon a commitment to direct physical evidence. However, the direct evidence occurs in what appears to be pieces. It has usually been interpreted in a manner that gives the appearance of disunity. Unity seems to us to be a neater form of knowledge. There has remained the insurmountable weakness of fundamental theory that nothing of the nature of the causes has ever been discoverable. Fundamental theory cannot be directly proven to be correct. The principles of conservation of energy and momentum give a more unified appearance. The principles of conservation and principles in general seem to be unassailable. They appear to remain true. It became attractive to base theoretical analysis on such principles.

 

Here is an example of what has resulted:

 

[Quoting a physicist: "Every single principle that we teach in intro-college-physics is based on only two principles: Conservation of momentum, and conservation of energy/mass. That's it! All the other `laws' are based on those two principles - be it Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, E&M, etc... We can write those newtonian laws because of conservation of momentum. We can write the energy equations of the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian because of conservation of energy. Each conservation principle is based on some underlying symmetry of our physical world. Conservation of momentum is based on the isotropic symmetry of empty space, conservation of energy on the symmetry of time. So these are the FUNDAMENTAL assumptions that we build all our understanding on (ignoring the CPT conservation rules)."]

 

This line of argument is false. The accepted practice of turning theory development on its head is not an improvement in understanding the nature of the operation of the universe. We can base no knowledge on the isotropic symmetry of empty space. We can base no knowledge on the symmetry of time. These are not empirical facts. They are theoretical conclusions based upon speculative theory. The theory began all the way back at the beginning. It began with simple empirically based equations such as f=ma. The theoretical steps that moved us into higher-level theory added more guesses on top of guesses. The facts are the empirical evidence that is the basis for the fundamentals. We cannot perform experiments on empty space. We cannot perform experiments on time. We can only make

measurements of changes of velocity that occur within them. We measure distances within space and periods of time within time.

 

Energy is a quantitative measurement of a force being applied across a distance. Momentum is a quantitative measurement of a force being applied during a period of time. Neither one has been demonstrated to have a unique material existence. The idea to treat energy and momentum as if they were like liquids being poured from one container to another was simply adopted in higher-level theory. They represent the modern day fulfillment of the discarded Caloric Theory. Furthermore, whether or not force is presented as the effect of a field, that pushes or pulls, or is presented as the natural thing to do because of principles such as the gravitational effect of space-time, it makes no difference except in the mind of the interpreter. Matter is caused to change its velocity. The reason in all cases is unknowable. We only know about effects. We know nothing about causes.

 

THE QUESTION:

 

[Aside from the dependence relation between the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms and conservation laws being reversed in the quote, what is false with the line of reasoning?]

 

MY RESPONSE:

 

If you investigate empirical evidence with the intention of developing a theory by which to describe your beliefs about why action occurs, I expect your first step would necessarily be to form equations that imitate the patterns observed in the empirical evidence. At this very beginning of your theory you face your first major hurdle. Your do not know what are the causes. This is why you must formulate your theory. You need theory in order to talk as if you did know the nature of cause.

 

Your theory will be successful in extrapolating future empirical results so long as your equations accurately imitate the pattern you are testing. Even if your theory includes wrong interpretations, your mathematical analysis will reveal connections between various patterns. However, your faulty interpretations, depending upon how often you strayed from simplicity, i.e. unity, can make these mathematical revelations more or less awkward to achieve.

 

So you may find rather easily that force times distance, i.e. energy, is conserved. However, you also might then find that it is awfully awkward trying to theoretically establish a unifying link between gravitational effects and electromagnetic effects. This problem would result from your having interpreted, when deriving your fundamentals, gravity and electromagnetism as being uniquely different phenomenon.

 

You couldn't have known absolutely that they are fundamentally unique. However, if their empirical patterns of action seemed to you to be unrelated, then your theory would include this in its interpretation. Later when you attempt to find a way to unify them, you must overcome a difficult hurdle you placed in your way. If you said they were unique and now wish to show they are not unique, you have a very difficult adjustment to try to make in your theory.

 

For example, you may find you need to invent extra, unverifiable dimensions hiding somewhere in the universe in order to achieve the appearance of theoretical unity. This kind of solution is a real stretch, however, your theory has worked very well in making predictions, so it is tempting to believe that perhaps the theory is able to reveal phantom like properties that we are incapable of discerning by our own means.

 

No doubt your theory was designed to be internally consistent. Therefore, if you want to reverse the order of the work you have done, you could begin with your phantom like properties and show how your theory can be viewed backwards ending with the fundamentals.

 

If you then put your new work forward as demonstrating that the fundamentals are based upon the phantom like properties, you are way out on a limb. You did not know what is `cause' from the beginning of your theory, and you do not now know that your phantom properties are that `cause'.

 

Looking back at the beginning fundamentals, here is an example of how quickly you will have gone astray. Lets assume you observe objects undergoing changes of velocity. You model this information with the equation f=ma. Your empirical evidence consists only of measurements of distance and time. You do not know what is force and you do not know what is resistance to force. So you do not know what is 'f' or what is 'm'.

 

Two out of three properties in your equation have unknown natures. Your theory is already in crisis. In order to proceed, you must guess, i.e. theorize, one of the unknown properties into existence. In other words, you must invent a nature for one. Lets say you invent mass to account for resistance to force. Now you are able to define the second unknown property 'f' in terms of the empirically known 'a' and the theoretically invented 'm'.

 

If you are wrong about your guess for 'm', then your definition of force is also wrong. This early error spreads quickly into higher-level theory. The incorrect nature of force infects your definitions of both energy and momentum. Your problems do not end here. There are patterns of effects such as gravity and electromagnetism that have unknown causes. You must invent causes for them to continue with your theory.

 

In the case of electromagnetism, you might decide to theorize there is a cause you name as electric charge. Now you have included another major guess into your theory. Every time you imagine a separate unique cause for unexplained differences in patterns, you go further and further out on that limb.

 

If this is all just theory, does it really matter all that much? The answer is that it matters very much right from the start. The reason is that you aren't just inventing names; you are also inventing new units of measurement. You might have defined kilograms for mass and coulombs for electric charge.

 

These units are the means by which your theoretical guesses become a concrete part of your mathematical equations. Your equations were empirical and now you have transformed them into theoretical tools. The disunity and errors of your theory are now properties of your equations.

 

How does this all relate to modern theoretical physics? Today's orthodox theories have these human invented problems. They have the lack of fundamental knowledge in their fundamentals and the need to resort to phantom properties in higher-level theory. Whether the theories are viewed from the bottom up or the top down makes no difference in what they reveal to us. In either case they are reflections of our inadequacy. We are unable to know the nature of cause.

 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

 

Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is a facade that separates us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the universe. Nevertheless, its artificiality is laid bare by its lack of relevance to life and intelligence. Mechanics offers only imagined possibilities of non-life, non-intelligent causes for the patterns found in empirical evidence of the motion of matter.

 

Mathematics is not the language of the universe. It is a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. Whatever meaning becomes attached to our equations is in the thoughts of the theorist. If the theory is wrong then the equations will mirror our wrong ideas and their complications back to us. To overstate the importance of mathematics is to leave us vulnerable to blindly following equations whose interpretations have acquired unreasonable and even absurd meaning.

 

If theoretical physicists do formulate a theory-of-everything, it will represent only a rudimentary interpretation of the operation of the universe. It would be rudimentary by virtue of its being mechanical. Their theory-of-everything would not be a theory of everything. It would be an attempt to unite mechanical theory. It would not advance our understanding of the most important effects of the universe, life and intelligence.

 

James A. Putnam

[Buffy]

Welcome to the Lion's Den Mr. Putnam! You use a lot of awfully big words, and I'm kind of a simple gal, so let me summarize what I think I heard you say here:

 

1) You "think" a lot of things are wrong with physics and cosmology (you didn't have time to include Evolution, but I suppose you'll get there soon enough). You'll find we value opinions around here, but only empirical evidence is taken seriously.

 

2) You claim that physical theories do not explain their causes, but do not explain why a cause is relevant to a theory being empirically provable. Your definition of "cause" seems to point to--although you seem to studiously avoid saying it directly--what most folks would call "metaphysics" or "religion." These are not scientific areas of human discourse and do not have a useful place within the scientific method. They're not wrong, a lot of folks who are heavily involved in science also believe in a higher power, but also believe that this has nothing to do with science. "Render unto Newton..."

 

3) You claim that no empirical evidence exists for any theories and if they were tested they would prove to be wrong.

 

4) You claim that theories are "internally consistent", which a lot of us would take as meaning they produce accurate and repeatable results, but do not explain why its bad that theories that are accepted as valid by scientists produce repeatable, empirically proven results.

 

5) You claim that time is not measurable. Einstein proved that it is relative and differs by the relative speed of the observer and this has been shown repeatedly through empirical experiments to be a valid theory.

 

There are lots of postulates that are shown mathematically for which there is no *current* physical, empirical evidence, but this is not sufficient argument under the scientific method to show that they are wrong or require a "theory of causes."

 

We'd be greatly interested (not to say being challenged to disprove, and being greatly entertained) to hear your responses to these issues. We will do nothing to stifle your opinions, as the scientific method requires that *all* questions posed about a theory be entertained, but realize that such questions can be irrelevant because they invoke non-scientific concepts, and may reasonably be refuted as "science" on those grounds alone. This is not "closed-mindedness," but rather an adherence to logic (which unfortunately you deride as being a mere "crude approximation" of the "truth."). There are thousands of years of development in the scientific method, and while its proponents will willingly admit that it does not *explain* the existence of a creator, many will argue vociferously on the metaphysical side that claiming that science is irrelevant because there is an intelligent creator is unnecessary and offensive.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

I disagree with your idea, James. While scientists do not know the underlying cause for the laws of physics, the laws of physics still apply. Use a computer program as a metaphor.

 

Assume I create a program that sorts five user entered words alphabetically. This program will become our metaphorical universe. Now, a scientist studies this program (our universe) and discovers that 'calm' always comes before 'storm', and that 'darkest' always comes before 'dawn', and so on, and he is able to discover that the laws of this universe determine in which order the words should be formed, 'a' before 'b', and so on. Eventually, he is able to predict what words will be in what order. He does not know why the words form alphabetically, but they do, and that is what he is interested in.

 

This is what science is like, we are discovering the rules, and we are not interested so much in the reason for the rules.

[Tormod]

The true nature is something very different.

 

Interesting. You write a lot about what is wrong with theoretical physics. But you fail to incorporate any other science. Cosmology is not the application of theoretical physics to the observation of the universe - it is the formulation of ideas about the universe using language from many different sciences.

 

As for the quote, well, you also fail to tell us what this "true nature of something" is, and what it is different from.

 

I for one do not believe in absolute truths, but I know a religious dogma when I see one.

[James Putnam]

Hello Buffy,

 

Welcome to the Lion's Den Mr. Putnam! You use a lot of awfully big words, and I'm kind of a simple gal, so let me summarize what I think I heard you say here:

 

1) You "think" a lot of things are wrong with physics and cosmology (you did have time to include Evolution, but I suppose you'll get there soon enough). You'll find we value opinions around here, but only empirical evidence is taken seriously.

 

That is what I think about theoretical physics. A lot of things are wrong. Primarily the interjection of ideas that are not empirical. Those unempirical theoretical ideas are the result of a philosphical preferrence to believe in mechanical materialism. There is no empirical evidence to support this belief. We directly experience only intelligence and information. Mechanical materialism has nothing to offer as a cause or explanation for the existence of intelligence. I believe that evolution occured by intelligent design.

 

2) You claim that physical theories do not explain their causes, but do not explain why a cause is relevant to a theory being empirically provable. Your definition of "cause" seems to point to--although you seem to studiously avoid saying it directly--what most folks would call "metaphysics" or "religion." These are not scientific areas of human discourse and do not have a useful place within the scientific method. They're not wrong, a lot of folks who are heavily involved in science also believe in a higher power, but also believe that this has nothing to do with science. "Render unto Newton..."

 

What I point to is that intelligence is cause. Intelligence is empirical. We know it exists. We do not know that any of the mechanical causes of theoretical physics exist. Intelligence is our source for all interpretation of the operation of the universe. It is the cause for what we think we know.

 

3) You claim that no empirical evidence exists for any theories and if they were tested they would prove to be wrong.

 

I claim that no empirical evidence exists for the mechanical causes put forward by theoretical physics. I claim they cannot be tested, because they only exist in the imaginations of physicists. Please tell me which ones you know to be real.

 

4) You claim that theories are "internally consistent", which a lot of us would take as meaning they produce accurate and repeatable results, but do not explain why its bad that theories that are accepted as valid by scientists produce repeatable, empirically proven results.

 

I only assumed that the sample theory was internally consistent. I do not claim that theories in general are internally consistent. Theories do not produce empirical results. They extrapolate possible results from equations that imitate patterns observed in empirical data. Success in making predictions is not sufficient to prove the validity of a theory. Good theory demonstrates unity and successful predictions.

 

5) You claim that time is not measurable. Einstein proved that it is relative and differs by the relative speed of the observer and this has been shown repeatedly through empirical experiments to be a valid theory.

 

Einstein proved nothing about time. He nor anyone else could perform experiments on 'time'. Time is not something that we can handle and observe. We observe motion of matter. If the motion of matter slows, then that proves only that the motion of matter slowed. Einstein offerred a theory. Theory is not empirical fact. His theory proves only that its equations accurately imitate patterns observed in the motion of matter up to a point. Where it fails mechanically, quantum theory is brought to the rescue. Where it fails on properties of the universe that cannot be described by mechanical theory, it remains not rescued. His theory, as well as all other mechanical theories, does not represent the natural properties of a universe that gave birth to life and intelligence.

 

There are lots of postulates that are shown mathematically for which there is no *current* physical, empirical evidence, but this is not sufficient argument under the scientific method to show that they are wrong or require a "theory of causes."

 

Those who put forward theories have the duty to show that they are good theories. Good theory shows accurate predictions and unity. All explanations of causes are theory. We know nothing about cause. We know only about effects. It is our lack of knowledge about cause that necessitates the invention of theory. Any theory that is mechanical fails right from the start to account for this universe.

 

We'd be greatly interested (not to say being challenged to disprove, and being greatly entertained) to hear your responses to these issues. We will do nothing to stifle your opinions, as the scientific method requires that *all* questions posed about a theory be entertained, but realize that such questions can be irrelevant because they invoke non-scientific concepts, and may reasonably be refuted as "science" on those grounds alone. This is not "closed-mindedness," but rather an adherence to logic (which unfortunately you deride as being a mere "crude approximation" of the "truth."). There are thousands of years of development in the scientific method, and while its proponents will willingly admit that it does not *explain* the existence of a creator, many will argue vociferously on the metaphysical side that claiming that science is irrelevant because there is an intelligent creator is unnecessary and offensive.

 

Mechanical materialism can even more easily be viewed as unnecssary and offensive. It has no relevance to the existence of intelligence. Please cite a mechanical material cause for anything and explain how you know it is true. Please cite the cause of intelligence.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

James Putnam

[James Putnam]

Interesting. You write a lot about what is wrong with theoretical physics. But you fail to incorporate any other science.

 

I deal first with theoretical physics because it is the foundational science of mechanical materialism. When it is discarded then progress will again be possible in analyzing the operation of a universe that produces life and intelligence.

 

Cosmology is not the application of theoretical physics to the observation of the universe - it is the formulation of ideas about the universe using language from many different sciences.

 

I did not try to explain cosmology. I explained why theoretical physics is flawed right from the start.

 

As for the quote, well, you also fail to tell us what this "true nature of something" is, and what it is different from.

 

The only two properties that are experienced directly in this universe are intelligence and information. The nature of intelligence is intelligence. Intelligence cannot be created from non-intelligence. Lower intelligence cannot cause higher intelligence. What do you claim as the cause of intelligence? Everything else you think you know is the product of your intelligence. What is the cause of your intelligence?

 

I for one do not believe in absolute truths, but I know a religious dogma when I see one.

 

And I know a scientific dogma when I see it.

 

James

[James Putnam]

Hello pgrmdave,

 

I disagree with your idea, James. While scientists do not know the underlying cause for the laws of physics, the laws of physics still apply. Use a computer program as a metaphor.

 

The operation of the universe is controlled. That is why we observe consistency. We can catalogue the empirical evidence that demonstrate this consistency. We can model consistency in motion of matter by mathematical equations. This is proper and of great use. It is when we begin to imagine that we know why consistency and predictability occurs that we become emboldened to make claims about the nature of cause. For example, the cause of electromagnetism is declared to be electric charge. No one knows what is electric charge. So long as it is imagined to be mechanical in nature, we can be certain it is only theoretical and will not suffice as a fundamental property of this universe. What needs to be postulated are properties of the universe that cause matter to form life and generate individual intelligent thought.

 

Assume I create a program that sorts five user entered words alphabetically. This program will become our metaphorical universe. Now, a scientist studies this program (our universe) and discovers that 'calm' always comes before 'storm', and that 'darkest' always comes before 'dawn', and so on, and he is able to discover that the laws of this universe determine in which order the words should be formed, 'a' before 'b', and so on. Eventually, he is able to predict what words will be in what order. He does not know why the words form alphabetically, but they do, and that is what he is interested in.

 

This is what science is like, we are discovering the rules, and we are not interested so much in the reason for the rules.

 

That is fine as long as scientist do not claim the reason to be mechanical causes. Thank you for your response. It is nice to meet you.

 

James

[Buffy]

That is what I think about theoretical physics. A lot of things are wrong. Primarily the interjection of ideas that are not empirical.

So you're basically saying that you object to anyone saying anything that cannot be empirically proved, but then you say that nothing can be proved. You really need to decide what you want to say because your theory is internally inconsistent. And moreover, "belief" is not empirical. Even the existentialists would not agree with this.

The scientific method places development of theories prior to empirical proof at the beginning of its process. Its called "formulating a hypothesis." Your attempt to claim that hypotheses should not be allowed is a round about mechanism for trying to redefine the Scientific Method to prove your unscientific beliefs.

I believe that evolution occured by intelligent design.

Nice! Knew you'd get around to it. Now provide us with some empirical evidence for your unproven hypothesis. Oh wait, you don't allow unproven hypotheses. Oh well.

What I point to is that intelligence is cause. Intelligence is empirical. We know it exists. We do not know that any of the mechanical causes of theoretical physics exist. Intelligence is our source for all interpretation of the operation of the universe. It is the cause for what we think we know.

You'll find no argument with the notion that intelligence causes things to happen. Unfortunately, in Formal Logic:

A implies B

is not equivalent to

B implies A

Which is the fundamental premise of "intelligent design": "Since intelligence causes things to happen, if things happen, there must be intelligence behind it." I know you "believe" this is true, but it does not pass formal logic which is a foundation of the scientific method. Sorry!

We do not know that any of the mechanical causes of theoretical physics exist.

Wanted to repeat this because I want to repeat, this statement does not in any way show that the theories are invalid. The scientific method can invalidate theories, but it does not say that theories for which there no *current* empirical tests are invald.

I claim that no empirical evidence exists for the mechanical causes put forward by theoretical physics. I claim they cannot be tested, because they only exist in the imaginations of physicists. Please tell me which ones you know to be real.

If you don't believe in them you're free to propose alternate theories. You cannot claim they are invalid unless you come up with an empirical test to disprove them (note this actually doesn't require you come up with an alternate theory, but you can't call a theory wrong unless you prove that it is incorrect with evidence).

I only assumed that the sample theory was internally consistent. I do not claim that theories in general are internally consistent. Theories do not produce empirical results. They extrapolate possible results from equations that imitate patterns observed in empirical data. Success in making predictions is not sufficient to prove the validity of a theory. Good theory demonstrates unity and successful predictions.

Now what you seem to be doing here is the old canard of trying to redefine "theory" to mean "any idea that has not been proven" then segue into "so they're all unprovable, QED." This is not the accepted definition of the word "Theory" which is any set of statements that can be used to describe physical phenomena. A theory may or may not be testable, but that does not make it invalid or worthy of use. Now what's really silly about these statements is that you then say that "Good theory demonstrates unity and successful predictions" and we'd all agree with that with the exception of the word unity, which we don't really give a darn about. Now that being said, if you go around saying that no theories can be proven, there's lots of successful predictions from these theories that you either are unwilling to look up or accept. Oh well.

Einstein proved nothing about time. He nor anyone else could perform experiments on 'time'. Time is not something that we can handle and observe. We observe motion of matter. If the motion of matter slows, then that proves only that the motion of matter slowed.

Did ya ever hear about that experiment where they put a bunch of atomic clocks up in an airplane and flew it around for a long time and when they landed and compared them to the stationary clocks, they were a few clicks different? Please tell us why this experiment, based on a testable hypothesis provided by Einstein was somehow wrong?

Einstein offerred a theory. Theory is not empirical fact. His theory proves only that its equations accurately imitate patterns observed in the motion of matter up to a point. Where it fails mechanically, quantum theory is brought to the rescue. Where it fails on properties of the universe that cannot be described by mechanical theory, it remains not rescued. His theory, as well as all other mechanical theories, does not represent the natural properties of a universe that gave birth to life and intelligence.

Well I took care of the silly "a theory is not a fact" notion above, but the only point you appear to be making is because some of these theories do not have empirical evidence *yet* that there's gotta be an intelligent creator. This is not science. Science says we know what we can see and we can guess at what we can't see, and when we guess we'd better be prepared to have the guess be shown by experiment to be false.

It is our lack of knowledge about cause that necessitates the invention of theory. Any theory that is mechanical fails right from the start to account for this universe.

No, it doesn't. Science is interested in causes only in so far as the theories about those causes produce testable hypotheses (not that we can actually perform those tests yet, but that they are testable given means not yet obtainable). If you want to find metaphysical "causes", that's fine, but its not Science.

Mechanical materialism can even more easily be viewed as unnecssary and offensive. It has no relevance to the existence of intelligence. Please cite a mechanical material cause for anything and explain how you know it is true. Please cite the cause of intelligence.

Well as you said, intelligence exists. No argument there. I can go on for hours about the evolutionary usefulness of intelligence, but this is not the proper thread for this (you'll find lots of arguments elsewhere on this site). I don't have a problem with you feeling that mecahnical materialism is wrong, but that's a philosophical and metaphysical argument, not Science.

 

Welcome to Hypography!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Tormod]

What do you claim as the cause of intelligence?

 

I have made no claims for the cause of intelligence. I have said many times here at Hypography that I do not know what intelligence is.

 

Everything else you think you know is the product of your intelligence.

 

Right. Which again is the product of my interaction with my surroundings and my genetic inheritance, no matter how you twist or turn it. Which philosopher should we choose? Plato? Aristotle? Augustine? Kant? Hume? Or perhaps some more recent philosopher? Russell? Kuhn? Goedel?

 

And I know a scientific dogma when I see it.

 

LOL. What did I write that was scientific dogma? There was hardly anything in my post to qualify as either scientific nor dogma. Nice try, though. Playing ping-pong is something we're good at here at Hypography.

 

Your crusade against theoretical physics is not a scientific project, but a religious attempt at getting rid of unwanted ideas. I don't understand why you choose to publish such ideas at a scientific forum. And I also fail to see why you posted it in the "Philosophy of Science" as you are so opposed to the workings of science. Why not a frontal attack in the Physics forum? :cup:

[James Putnam]

So you're basically saying that you object to anyone saying anything that cannot be empirically proved, but then you say that nothing can be proved.

 

I object to anyone declaring as fact that which they cannot prove. Theories are fine if they help us to organize our thoughts when solving problems. If your theory is intended to solve mechanical problems, then a mechanical theory is fine. Please do not then claim it has anything to do with solving the problems of life and intelligence.

 

You really need to decide what you want to say because your theory is internally inconsistent.

 

So you assume that your limitations are due to me?

 

And moreover, "belief" is not empirical.

 

That is why I am calling your idea of science for what it is. It is a belief system. It is not empirical.

 

Even the existentialists would not agree with this.

The scientific method places development of theories prior to empirical proof at the beginning of its process. Its called "formulating a hypothesis." Your attempt to claim that hypotheses should not be allowed is a round about mechanism for trying to redefine the Scientific Method to prove your unscientific beliefs.

 

You may twist this anyway you wish, but in the end you will have to establish that you are correct by explaining how mechanical properties can be the cause of life and intelligence. Your problem begins even before this point. You cannot even prove your mechanical properties.

 

Nice!

 

Nice back!

 

Knew you'd get around to it. Now provide us with some empirical evidence for your unproven hypothesis.

 

And I knew that you would get around to avoiding proving your case. I am challenging the viability of mechanical materialism as a theory. Are you or are you not defending it? If you are defending it then please proceed to do so.

 

Oh wait, you don't allow unproven hypotheses.

 

I do not allow half baked theories to claim a monopoly on truth.

 

Oh well.

You'll find no argument with the notion that intelligence causes things to happen. Unfortunately, in Formal Logic:

A implies B

is not equivalent to

B implies A

Which is the fundamental premise of "intelligent design": "Since intelligence causes things to happen, if things happen, there must be intelligence behind it." I know you "believe" this is true, but it does not pass formal logic which is a foundation of the scientific method. Sorry!{/QUOTE]

 

Of course it is logical. I know you believe it is not, but your conclusion is incorrect. Intelligence is the property of the universe by which you are able to discern meaning in anything. Everything you think you know is the product of your intelligence. What is the cause of this intelligence?

 

Wanted to repeat this because I want to repeat, this statement does not in any way show that the theories are invalid. The scientific method can invalidate theories, but it does not say that theories for which there no *current* empirical tests are invald.

If you don't believe in them you're free to propose alternate theories. You cannot claim they are invalid unless you come up with an empirical test to disprove them (note this actually doesn't require you come up with an alternate theory, but you can't call a theory wrong unless you prove that it is incorrect with evidence).

 

However, I can say that which I am saying. Your theories are only ideas about the kinds of causes in which you would like to believe. Believe in them freely, but do not claim they are fact. And, please do not claim that they represent the real properties of this universe. I am saying they do not. Are you claiming they do?

 

Now what you seem to be doing here is the old canard of trying to redefine "theory" to mean "any idea that has not been proven" then segue into "so they're all unprovable, QED." This is not the accepted definition of the word "Theory" which is any set of statements that can be used to describe physical phenomena. A theory may or may not be testable, but that does not make it invalid or worthy of use. Now what's really silly about these statements is that you then say that "Good theory demonstrates unity and successful predictions" and we'd all agree with that with the exception of the word unity, which we don't really give a darn about. Now that being said, if you go around saying that no theories can be proven, there's lots of successful predictions from these theories that you either are unwilling to look up or accept. Oh well.

 

Why don't you stop circling and proceed to defend mechanical materialism? You do not appreciate the significance of achieving unity. That is fine. Disunity is certainly in evidence in physics theory. You may be satisfied with this piecemeal approach, but I am not.

 

Did ya ever hear about that experiment where they put a bunch of atomic clocks up in an airplane and flew it around for a long time and when they landed and compared them to the stationary clocks, they were a few clicks different? Please tell us why this experiment, based on a testable hypothesis provided by Einstein was somehow wrong?

 

You avoid explaining why this experiment proves that time slows. You think you are in the superior position, but you do not support what you say. You insist that I should disprove your unproven positions. The clocks slowed down. That is what is learned. The clocks are not time. The clocks are matter interacting with matter. You do not know the cause of their interaction. You do not know why that cause should slow. You certainly do not know that time is that cause. Time was not contained in a vessel traveling along with the clock. It was not experimented on. We cannot handle time.

 

 

 

Well I took care of the silly "a theory is not a fact" notion above, but the only point you appear to be making is because some of these theories do not have empirical evidence *yet* that there's gotta be an intelligent creator.

 

You will have to show where I mentioned creator. My position is that you do not get to declare your theories to be facts. You do not know what is cause. You do not know what is force. You do not know what is mass. You do not know what is electric charge. You only know that changes of velocity occur in patterns. You have no idea about a cause for intelligence. If you think you do, then please explain the cause of intelligence. My position is that there is no way for intelligence to arise from a mechanical cause. Do you think it can? Then please get around to explaining how it was accomplished. I repeat that insofar as human logic is concerned intelligence is uncaused.

 

This is not science. Science says we know what we can see and we can guess at what we can't see, and when we guess we'd better be prepared to have the guess be shown by experiment to be false.

No, it doesn't. Science is interested in causes only in so far as the theories about those causes produce testable hypotheses (not that we can actually perform those tests yet, but that they are testable given means not yet obtainable). If you want to find metaphysical "causes", that's fine, but its not Science.

 

It is so easy for you to simply declare victory without making your own case. This is science to you? We see what our intelligence lets us see through a process of interpreting information. Intelligence comes first and conclusions come second. Explain the cause of intelligence.

 

Well as you said, intelligence exists. No argument there. I can go on for hours about the evolutionary usefulness of intelligence, but this is not the proper thread for this (you'll find lots of arguments elsewhere on this site).

 

Thats not necessary. Why don't you just explain the cause of intelligence?

 

I don't have a problem with you feeling that mecahnical materialism is wrong, but that's a philosophical and metaphysical argument, not Science.

 

So you defend those who make up causes and say that this is science. You think an interpetation of the operation of the universe that has no relevance to the existence of life and intelligence is science? You are welcome to believe in mechanical materialism if you wish, but be satisfied with solving only mechanical problems. That is the lowest level of interpretation for the operation of the universe. It is not real. It is metaphysical. Real science is needed to remove this facade and allow progress to be made toward analyzing the operation of the real universe. The real universe contains the properties that produce life and intelligence. Do you know anything about those properties?

 

Welcome to Hypography!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Thank you Buffy,

 

James

[C1ay]

Intelligent Design Science is an oxymoron. It requires a leap of faith and therefore is religion, not science. JMO

[Tormod]

Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is a facade that separates us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the universe.

 

...

 

The real universe contains the properties that produce life and intelligence.

 

...

 

I object to anyone declaring as fact that which they cannot prove.

 

Tell me again...has anyone said science is not based on empirical evidence? Or that the scientific method is not based on empirical evidence? Has anyone said science is based on absolute facts? Man, you must have read the wrong books...

 

You are full of it, aren't you. you throw a lot of assumptions about scientists not "knowing what a force is" and other nice phrases but I have yet to see that anything you write is not based on just that - assumptions.

 

Then you ask everyone else to prove that they are right, without offering a shred of evidence yourself.

 

Sorry pal. The burden of evidence lies on you. You are the one making extraordinary claims, you're the one who needs to come up with proof.

 

You already stated you think our universe is the results of intelligent design. Fine. But you can't prove it by saying there is a different science, a "real" science, without showing us what this science is.

 

In fact, you seem to think that science is a lot of "truths". But the only one throwing around "truths" here is you. Science is about knowledge and learning - and making errors. Who cares if you want to call it a belief system or not? That doesn't change anything, now, does it?

[Tormod]

The operation of the universe is controlled. That is why we observe consistency.

 

= an assumption. Prove it.

 

For example, the cause of electromagnetism is declared to be electric charge. No one knows what is electric charge.

 

I think you need to explain this one.

 

What needs to be postulated are properties of the universe that cause matter to form life and generate individual intelligent thought.

 

And those properties are:

 

(list them here)

[James Putnam]

James: I was unable to respond, using reply, to Tormods message with my quotes and his responses intact. I copied the messages here. I apologize for this. I need to become accustomed to the method of replies used here.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Putnam

What do you claim as the cause of intelligence?

 

Tormod: I have made no claims for the cause of intelligence. I have said many times here at Hypography that I do not know what intelligence is.

 

James: Do you champion mechanical materialism? Do you believe that intelligence evolved? Do you believe that mechanical materialism can be the cause of the evolution of intelligence. What do you believe?

 

Quote:

Everything else you think you know is the product of your intelligence.

 

Tormod: Right. Which again is the product of my interaction with my surroundings and my genetic inheritance, no matter how you twist or turn it. Which philosopher should we choose? Plato? Aristotle? Augustine? Kant? Hume? Or perhaps some more recent philosopher? Russell? Kuhn? Goedel?

 

James: Your intelligence cannot be the product of your interaction with your surroundings. You conclusions may be such a product. However, The intelligence comes first. Your surroundings in no way cause intelligence. Do you believe your intelligence is caused by a mechanical world? Either you are claiming there is a cause or you are not. If you are not claiming there is a cause, then I stand by my statement. Insofar as human logic is concerned intelligence is uncaused.

 

Quote:

And I know a scientific dogma when I see it.

 

Tormod: LOL. What did I write that was scientific dogma?

 

James: When you said "Cosmology is not the application of theoretical physics to the observation of the universe - it is the formulation of ideas about the universe using language from many different sciences." You say this as if the ideas are scientifically properly related to one another. How does physics theory relate to life and intelligence? I cannot tell what you believe. Do you defend mechanical materialism or not?

 

Tormod: There was hardly anything in my post to qualify as either scientific nor dogma. Nice try, though. Playing ping-pong is something we're good at here at Hypography.

 

James: But are there answers here about the origin and operation of the universe?

 

Tormod: Your crusade against theoretical physics is not a scientific project, but a religious attempt at getting rid of unwanted ideas.

 

James: It is a scientific project. Your beliefs do not define science. If you have scientific facts to explain the operation of the universe, then what are they?

 

Tormod: I don't understand why you choose to publish such ideas at a scientific forum. And I also fail to see why you posted it in the "Philosophy of Science" as you are so opposed to the workings of science. Why not a frontal attack in the Physics forum?

 

James: I do attack physics theory directly. However, I wished to discuss the cause of intelligence. I wished to discuss a relationship between intelligence and the operation of the universe. If you think it should be moved, then please do so. I will debate this in either forum.

[James Putnam]

Intelligent Design Science is an oxymoron. It requires a leap of faith and therefore is religion, not science. JMO

 

I do not know what you believe about the operation of the universe. However, if you are defending mechanical materialism, than you are using leaps of faith in arriving at your conclusion. Explain something.

[Tormod]

James: I was unable to respond, using reply, to Tormods message with my quotes and his responses intact. I copied the messages here. I apologize for this. I need to become accustomed to the method of replies used here.

 

James, feel free to experiment in the Test forum. Do you have the "Standard" editor turned on (check this under "Options" on your UserCP).

 

the only browser I know of that has problems with the vBulletin editor is Safari, although there may be others of course.

[James Putnam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is a facade that separates us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the universe.

 

...

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by same

The real universe contains the properties that produce life and intelligence.

 

...

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by same

I object to anyone declaring as fact that which they cannot prove.

 

Tormod: Tell me again...has anyone said science is not based on empirical evidence? Or that the scientific method is not based on empirical evidence? Has anyone said science is based on absolute facts? Man, you must have read the wrong books...

 

James: There are only facts. You can try to excuse the practice of putting theory forward as fact by reserving the right to say they are not absolute facts. However, you do not get to do that with me. What do you believe are the properties of this universe? Does the mechanical materialism of theoretical physics explain anything for you?

 

Tormod: You are full of it, aren't you. you throw a lot of assumptions about scientists not "knowing what a force is" and other nice phrases but I have yet to see that anything you write is not based on just that - assumptions.

 

James: This is good. You explain nothing about the operation of the universe. I challenge mechanical materialism, are you defending it or not? You charge me with throwing around assemptions. What do you know for fact about the operation of the universe besides effects?

 

Tormod: Then you ask everyone else to prove that they are right, without offering a shred of evidence yourself.

 

James: Will you defend mechanical materialism?

 

Tormod: Sorry pal. The burden of evidence lies on you. You are the one making extraordinary claims, you're the one who needs to come up with proof.

 

James: Theoretical physics makes extraordinary claims about the operation of the universe. Mechanical materialists make extraordinary claims about the evolution of life and intelligence. Where is the proof? Do you defend any of this or not? I say that mechanical materialism has no relevance to the development of life and intelligence. It cannot. Mechanical theory pretends to explain why objects change their velocities. How does change of velocity give rise to intelligence?

 

Tormod: You already stated you think our universe is the results of intelligent design. Fine. But you can't prove it by saying there is a different science, a "real" science, without showing us what this science is.

Tormod: In fact, you seem to think that science is a lot of "truths". But the only one throwing around "truths" here is you. Science is about knowledge and learning - and making errors. Who cares if you want to call it a belief system or not? That doesn't change anything, now, does it?

 

James: Sure it does. It takes mechanical materialists out of the driver's seat. I do not think that science is a lot of truths. I do think that mechanical materialism is not science.

 

 

James