Question for religious parents

dragonlady wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

The point is, if the quantum phsyicists are right, by logical extension,
the cat MUST be simultaneously dead and alive.

Even to me, this conversation is clearly pointless to continue. You
either didn't read those quotes, didn't understand them, didn't think
people with the day job of thinking about the logical consequences of
quantum theory had anything meaningful to say about the logical
consequences of quantum theory, or were in a really big hurry to tell
me that I was wrong.

Or you didn't read what I actually wrote. Yes, I know the cat isn't
both dead and alive -- what Schrodinger was doing with his thought
experiment was taking what, *according to him at the time* was the
logical extension of what the quantum physicists were saying. I'm just
saying it's an interesting thing to contemplate. Sort of like a zen
koan.

What you actually wrote was. "by logical extension, the cat MUST be
simultaneously dead and alive." But that is not true. By logical
extension, since it looks like a contradiction is entailed, something
went wrong.

They knew it was wrong *because* it appeared to generate a
contradiction. Like I said earlier, they didn't say, "Oh, look how zen
we're being!" They said, "Boy, something's wrong here."

If that's what zen koans are like, they aren't really contradictions,
and believing both sides won't get you any truth.

I'll take Socrates as an authority over Fowler; thanks.

Depends -- on what topic?

On non-contradiction. Frankly, I think you're trying to make an
argument from authority, as you keep saying "Read Fowler" rather than
making an argument about why believing a contradiction would be a
useful way of thinking critically. I've been trying to explain my
position without resorting to any authorities to back me up. Either
the argument stands on its own, or it doesn't.

I did cite two quantum theorists who disagree with the claim that the
cat is both alive and dead, since you said you were interested and
well-read on the topic of how quantum mechanics might relate to
religious belief.

In spite of what you obviously think of me, I would undoubtedly do quite
well in your class. I'm quite capable of doing the sort of work you
value.

It'd be nice to see that, rather than just have you insist it's true.

Anyway.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

In article . com,
" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

The point is, if the quantum phsyicists are right, by logical extension,
the cat MUST be simultaneously dead and alive.

Even to me, this conversation is clearly pointless to continue. You
either didn't read those quotes, didn't understand them, didn't think
people with the day job of thinking about the logical consequences of
quantum theory had anything meaningful to say about the logical
consequences of quantum theory, or were in a really big hurry to tell
me that I was wrong.

Or you didn't read what I actually wrote. Yes, I know the cat isn't
both dead and alive -- what Schrodinger was doing with his thought
experiment was taking what, *according to him at the time* was the
logical extension of what the quantum physicists were saying. I'm just
saying it's an interesting thing to contemplate. Sort of like a zen
koan.

What you actually wrote was. "by logical extension, the cat MUST be
simultaneously dead and alive." But that is not true. By logical
extension, since it looks like a contradiction is entailed, something
went wrong.

They knew it was wrong *because* it appeared to generate a
contradiction. Like I said earlier, they didn't say, "Oh, look how zen
we're being!" They said, "Boy, something's wrong here."

If that's what zen koans are like, they aren't really contradictions,
and believing both sides won't get you any truth.

Zen koans are not about paradox or contradiction -- they are about
expanding your mind by imagining the unimaginable -- the most famous is
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" They are not intended to be
solved with logic -- and, in fact, if you answer them, then you are
contemplating them in the wrong way.


I'll take Socrates as an authority over Fowler; thanks.

Depends -- on what topic?

On non-contradiction. Frankly, I think you're trying to make an
argument from authority, as you keep saying "Read Fowler" rather than
making an argument about why believing a contradiction would be a
useful way of thinking critically. I've been trying to explain my
position without resorting to any authorities to back me up. Either
the argument stands on its own, or it doesn't.

I did cite two quantum theorists who disagree with the claim that the
cat is both alive and dead, since you said you were interested and
well-read on the topic of how quantum mechanics might relate to
religious belief.

In spite of what you obviously think of me, I would undoubtedly do quite
well in your class. I'm quite capable of doing the sort of work you
value.

It'd be nice to see that, rather than just have you insist it's true.

Is that how you approach your students when they persist in not agreeing
with you? I could use your approach successfully, and pass a test on it
-- and still disagree with you.

I know I am capable of knowing what is true in a factual, provable way
and what is not (the difference between having evidence and having
proof). I know that, when it comes to things for which there can be no
proof, I am capable of holding a belief (based on the evidence) without
thinking that those who disagree with me are necessarily wrong. It is
an odd thing, perhaps, and it has taken me a long time to get here --
but here I am.

That you can't understand how I can do that is fairly irrelevant.

You are obviously well read and well educated, as well as highly
rational. I don't know if your inability to understand how I do this
(or, perhaps, to believe me) is because my descriptive skills are
lacking (hence the referral to Fowler, who does a better job of
describing the rise of the ironic imagination than I can) or a lack of
imagination on your part.

Or maybe its the sort of thing the mystics address when they say some
things cannot be addressed in words. In that case, it is something you
won't believe unless and until you experience it. It doesn't really
matter. *I* know I'm not an idiot, whatever you may choose to think.

I have enjoyed this conversation -- and am leaving for a while. Don't
know if I'll have much access to the internet for the next couple of
weeks, but when I do, I'll check back in.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:50:08 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:




I know I am capable of knowing what is true in a factual, provable way
and what is not (the difference between having evidence and having
proof). I know that, when it comes to things for which there can be no
proof, I am capable of holding a belief (based on the evidence) without
thinking that those who disagree with me are necessarily wrong. It is
an odd thing, perhaps, and it has taken me a long time to get here --
but here I am.

That you can't understand how I can do that is fairly irrelevant.

Thank you!

You are obviously well read and well educated, as well as highly
rational. I don't know if your inability to understand how I do this
(or, perhaps, to believe me) is because my descriptive skills are
lacking (hence the referral to Fowler, who does a better job of
describing the rise of the ironic imagination than I can) or a lack of
imagination on your part.

I tend to think that its a lack of imagination - the inability to
imagine something outside of a specific logical structure.

And I have no problem with that whatsoever. I do however have a bit of
a problem with the statement that I simply cannot mean what I say, or
feel how I feel.

It may be that this is something that a person who doesn't have a
strong belief or faith simply cannot imagine, or relate to. This is my
only expplanation at this point.


Barb

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 23:19:44 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

I'm not asking you to hold your beliefs the way I hold mine. You are
free to think that those who believe things that you do not believe are
wrong.


I think that you are simply fighting over two different definitions of
belief.
Dragonlady definition of believe is to have a religious conviction
defined as "everybody is right and my opinion is xyz".
C definition of believe is to have a firm conviction. This mean that
she accepts abc as true and that everything else is therefore false.

Believing is not knowing, there is a window open for a change. This
window can be big enough to consider that something else might be
right... or not.

I think it is time to let it go.

Anne

Barbara Bomberger wrote:

It may be that this is something that a person who doesn't have a
strong belief or faith simply cannot imagine, or relate to. This is my
only expplanation at this point.

Well, that certainly explains the Jesuits.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:54:22 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:


DH's PhD is in Material Science (a cross discimplinary field -- in his
case, he had to pass qualifiers in physics, chemistry and electrical
engineering) -- according to him, Shcrodinger was actually trying to do
a thought experiment to take the quantum theory of superposition of
states to an absurd level, since clearly the cat can't be simultaneously
dead AND alive. Shcrodinger didn't "approve" of quantum theory, and the
thought experiment was to show how silly it was.

Schroedinger was the father of quantum mechanics! He sure approved of
it!

Anne

wrote in message
oups.com...
Circe wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
But propositions are really either true, false, or indeterminate. The
claim isn't that the proposition, "God exists" is maybe true, but maybe
the proposition "God exists" is true.

Or maybe there is a third proposition that encompasses both "God exists"
and
"God doesn't exist". Just because we haven't thought of it yet doesn't
mean
it isn't possible.

All I'm saying is that in some cases, two apparently contradictory
propositions may be resolved by a third. Sort of like the way in which
string theory *might* encompass both mechanical theories in physics
(which
currently contradict one another in some basic ways).

Sure. That would make the proposition indeterminate, and it would need
to be further clarified, possibly by being broken down into multiple
propositions.

Well, no, the proposition isn't indeterminate. It's just that maybe the
answer isn't Boolean. Maybe asking whether or not God exists is like asking
whether a coin has a heads side or a tails side. Maybe the answer is "both".
Which means that *I* can think God doesn't exist while still believing that
it's possible for those who think God does exist may also be right.
--
Be well, Barbara

Circe wrote:

Well, no, the proposition isn't indeterminate. It's just that maybe the
answer isn't Boolean. Maybe asking whether or not God exists is like asking
whether a coin has a heads side or a tails side. Maybe the answer is "both".
Which means that *I* can think God doesn't exist while still believing that
it's possible for those who think God does exist may also be right.

So it becomes a question of what it is you mean by "God", exactly...
and what it means to "know" about something. If someone suggests a
coin has only one side, they're just confused. :-) Are you trying to
describe how it exists in reality? If yes, then certainly you'd say
there were error bars, things you still didn't know.

But I'm not talking about *knowing*, I'm talking about *believing*.
Regardless of how things actually are in reality, people hold beliefs
about them. Ideally they'd revise their beliefs in the face of
evidence that such beliefs weren't about reality.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

On 6 Mar 2006 10:05:02 -0800, "
wrote:

Circe wrote:

Well, no, the proposition isn't indeterminate. It's just that maybe the
answer isn't Boolean. Maybe asking whether or not God exists is like asking
whether a coin has a heads side or a tails side. Maybe the answer is "both".
Which means that *I* can think God doesn't exist while still believing that
it's possible for those who think God does exist may also be right.

So it becomes a question of what it is you mean by "God", exactly...
and what it means to "know" about something. If someone suggests a
coin has only one side, they're just confused. :-) Are you trying to
describe how it exists in reality? If yes, then certainly you'd say
there were error bars, things you still didn't know.

But I'm not talking about *knowing*, I'm talking about *believing*.
Regardless of how things actually are in reality, people hold beliefs
about them. Ideally they'd revise their beliefs in the face of
evidence that such beliefs weren't about reality.

Ideally for whom?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Circe wrote:
Well, no, the proposition isn't indeterminate. It's just that maybe the
answer isn't Boolean. Maybe asking whether or not God exists is like
asking
whether a coin has a heads side or a tails side. Maybe the answer is
"both".
Which means that *I* can think God doesn't exist while still believing
that
it's possible for those who think God does exist may also be right.

So it becomes a question of what it is you mean by "God", exactly...
and what it means to "know" about something.

If that interpretation of my meaning makes my position sensible to you, feel
free to consider it my final answer.
--
Be well, Barbara -- put a fork in me and turn me over; I'm done!