Natural Order and Science

[robvalue]

As far as I can see, it's only a problem for logic as applied to our reality and how it appears to work. Who knows how other realities might work, or how they interact? Viewed from the right perspective, an infinite regression might make perfect sense. It's only logically inconsistent if we demand everything have a finite past, and insist on a common sense linear timeline. It seems very much the case that time doesn't "work" how it appears to work to the casual observer.

Or, as you say, maybe there's infinite regression going on in this reality. We don't get to say there isn't, because it doesn't seem to make sense in our models.

I think Harris is very confused between descriptive models and prescriptive. We don't get to tell reality how it works, we observe and we try and make models that are as accurate as possible. But reality has the final say, always.

But these stupid arguments insist that there should be an infinite regress, but there isn't, therefor magic stopper God. It's beyond ridiculous.

[Harris]

We should not overlook a simple fact:

When particles collide nearly at the speed of light in Large Hadron Collider they burst into clouds full of exotic subatomic particles. All those subatomic particles have physical properties which made them detectable.


However, virtual particles are not detectable by any mean and for that reason in the world of physics they are called “virtual.” They are mathematical objects which scientists have invented for the purpose of calculations of interactions between real particles

It's not quite that simple. They weren't "put in" to calculate interactions, they are a result of the same theory which describes the "real particles". But let me ask you: how do you detect a "real particle"?

I think this lecture would give anyone a good understanding about what particles are and how they can be detected. Please note, throughout the lecture you will not hear anything about virtual particles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q944yL8wSFE

[Harris]

Logic can accurately represent the true nature of reality. Beginning with simple descriptions of particular things, we can eventually assemble our information in order to achieve a comprehensive view of the world.

Logic is a tool used to iron out inconsistencies. It may reflect reality, but not necessarily so. For instance, the following syllogism will illustrate my point:

- All fire-breathing dragons are mortal

- My pet is a fire-breathing dragon

- Therefore my pet is mortal.


Though the syllogism is correctly constructed, it doesn't reflect reality, unless I can prove that fire-breathing dragons do exist. Is logic important? Very important but by itself, it is not sufficient to guarantee that I have a set of statements that describes reality. I need to investigate empirically if the content of my statements have any reality basis -  in this case, the existence of fire-breathing dragons.

Logic always starts from observable and intelligible objects and then goes to metaphysical concepts. Your syllogism is not starting with a rational, intelligible, and observable object therefore it cannot be taken as logical.

[Harris]

You haven't explained anything about infinite regression. You've just said it's impossible because you say so. Basically you can't imagine it. The fact that you've said it "ends in nothing" means you can't conceptualise it. It doesn't end, or else it wouldn't be infinite.

And no, logic does not teach us about reality on its own. It must be combined with evidence, or else you're exploring an abstract model in your imagination and nothing more. It's why all this kind of stuff has no real world applications ever. It doesn't teach us anything.

If you apply regress on hydrogen atom that would take you to the simpler constituents of which it is made of. Further regress would bring you to a level lower and further regress bring you even to a more simplified version of matter and so on. What is the simplest form of matter? It is NOTHING. Thus infinite regress in material world is an impossibility.

[Harris]

However, virtual particles are not detectable by any mean and for that reason in the world of physics they are called “virtual.” They are mathematical objects which scientists have invented for the purpose of calculations of interactions between real particles and it is absolutely inappropriate to treat them as a different category of real physical particles which are detectable.

There is no such thing as a 'particle'.  What is referred to as particles are 'regular' fluctuations of a field, whereas "virtual particles' are irregular fluctuations of a field.  And they are both real and detectable.  Else how would we know they are there?

Virtual Particles: What are they?

Please explain how virtual particle are similar to fluctuation of a field. Also clarify about which field we are talking and what exactly is that field.

[Harris]

You're right descriptions are after-the-fact accounts. When someone asks, why did x, y, and z happen, they are not asking for an after-the-fact description of x, y, and z. They want to know what thing made x, y, and z happen, regardless of how that thing is described.

Yes, that's a good point.  The Big Bang as an answer to "where did the Universe come from," for example, is pretty unsatisfying.  If you can explain why there was a Big Bang, then you're getting somewhere.

Paradoxically, atheists (materialists) try to prove nonmaterial concepts (consciousness, intelligence, sense and feelings, etc.) through matter. But why there is a need of that tussle, because all these nonmaterial entities are part of their own material beings.

Mostly, in excitement and in haste people like you first jump over the conclusion which they think satisfactory according to their DESIRES and then start thinking the ways on how to fit those conclusions in science by reshaping science for them. For example, concerning consciousness in place of asking a logical question, is consciousness a product of matter or not they straightaway jump over the conclusion that consciousness is the firing of neurons nevertheless firing of neurons gives us no valued information about consciousness.

Consciousness as we all know is a personal realm of subjective experience; phenomenal consciousness. Nothing can be more familiar to you than your own subjective experiences but when one tries to understand what this subjective experience (qualia) is and how it works, nothing could be more mysterious. Do you think science is proficient enough to give an adequate explanation for phenomenal consciousness? No!

For instance, no understanding of colour from physics, from neuroscience, or from both together can give us the whole story about colour. There is something that our science inevitably leaves out. What it leaves out is a SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE that tells us, what colour LOOKS LIKE. As Nagel asked:

What it is like to be a bat.

Being totally dependent over physical sciences and by ignoring metaphysics, scientists would never reach the reality neither in physical sense nor in the logical sense. For example, if scientists somehow prove that Higgs Field does exist, which according to them is a potential candidate for the source of all matter, then straightaway from that postulation drives a new question, what is the origin of Higgs Field (if that really exists). In this sense the search for origins will continue until science would enter into nonmaterial world and then collapses, for a simple reason, “no matter no science.”

However, logic on which whole science is founded, is also perfectly functional in the world of metaphysics which can go well beyond the limits of science.

Therefore, based on our experiences, observations, and acquired knowledge:

It is very logical to think that causes are not subject to infinite regress and without an uncaused cause there can be no cause.

It is very logical to think that universe is a dependent being because everything in it is dependent

Based on how steadily and orderly our universe is functioning, it is very logical to think that universe is controlled by some intelligent force, the force that has ability of thinking and voluntarily exercising his own free will and creativity to produce and organise in systematic manner all events in the universe.

It is very logical to think that whatever force is controlling and running universe in intelligent manner is the creator of universe and that force is God.

[Harris]

Infinite regress is a problem for logic, not for the universe.  We can't reach a conclusion out of infinite regress, by definition.  That's what's impossible...more accurately, not infinite regress itself.   In that context and that context -alone- is infinite regress a problem of any kind.  Claiming that infinite regress, itself,  is impossible or a problem for the universe, is analogous to claiming that because your hammer failed to drive a nail...there's something wrong with the universe.

Infinite regress is not the problem of logic rather by logic infinite regress is impossible and you have contradicted your own statement by saying “We can't reach a conclusion out of infinite regress, by definition” which is true by logic.

Infinite regress poses no problem for the universe in whatsoever sense because universe is perfectly in a stable state. Your example of hammer makes no sense in the context of infinite regress.

[Harris]

I think Harris is very confused between descriptive models and prescriptive. We don't get to tell reality how it works, we observe and we try and make models that are as accurate as possible. But reality has the final say, always.

I am keen to learn what REALITY said to you about infinite regress?

[robvalue]

You've ignored everything I've said about regression, and are making up examples, using your own rules, and then making up conclusions that don't even follow. You're not interested in honest debate. You weren't last time you came here, and you've not developed during your break. You just want to force your pre-drawn conclusions through to make your religious beliefs feel more justified. I won't be wasting any more time. Come back when you have something to say about actual reality that has any use at all.

[Alex K]

It's not quite that simple. They weren't "put in" to calculate interactions, they are a result of the same theory which describes the "real particles". But let me ask you: how do you detect a "real particle"?

I think this lecture would give anyone a good understanding about what particles are and how they can be detected. Please note, throughout the lecture you will not hear anything about virtual particles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q944yL8wSFE

Ha, cool, I know her! Maybe I'll watch it later if I have time