Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Explanation reviewed.
Message-ID: <852@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 11:27:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.852
Posted: Wed May 22 11:27:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 08:24:21 EDT
References: <301@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 163

I, also, am trying to keep the size of these articles down.  So
far I don't think either of us has quoted the other out of context.

( '> ' == Keebler, '> > ' == Me.)

> You are quite correct in that my definition of science rules out God
> a priori.  It is also quite true that, as you mentioned later, this
> definition rules out miracles and all other events or processes that,
> by definition, disobey certain rules of nature.  In science, it is
> strictly impossible to study anything which may disobey particular
> rules of nature, especially if this occurs at whimsical/random/un-
> predictable occurances.

I don't know anyone who believes in a "whimsical/random/unpredictable"
God -- do you?  If not, then this is a strawgod argument.

> Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that there is some "beginning"
> or some "end".
> There is nothing to support a finite "time line".

Nor is there reason to believe that there is not a beginning or an end;
nor is there anything to support an infinite time line.  You made the
assumption that there is no beginning or end; do you have a reason,
other than "no reason to believe otherwise" ?

---------
This is a key point (I paraphrase, slightly, myself):
> > It is a very close approximation to reality, to say
> > that miracles do not occur, but one must remember that there is
> > a difference between the model and reality.
---------

> The difficulties lies in trying to find some objective/first-order
> descriptions of miracles.  Again, the whole idea behind science is
> to figure out what reality is.  Scientific method requires the
> existence of a set of rules that define the workings of reality.
> If such a set of rules can be violated in reality, then it is point-
> less to study reality via science.

You seem to have missed my point; I will try again.  There are two
sets of rules.  One contains those rules which exist in reality, and
which *define* the workings of reality.  The other contains those
rules which people have invented to *describe* the workings of
reality.  We wish that the two sets were identical (though we
know that it isn't so); we hope that they are sufficiently alike
that we can get on with life (e.g., our machines will work as planned.
We study reality via science in the hope that we can make the set
of descriptive rules more closely approximate the definitive rules.

One of the descriptive rules says that the universe is a closed
system.  But the only reason for accepting the premise that the
universe is closed is that it makes it easier to do our science.
Now, the best way I can think of to express the concept of miracles
in scientific terms is to say that the universe is not a closed system.
This doesn't make scientific study pointless; it merely acknowledges
the fact that science is not perfect.

Additionally, there have been (and still are) *lots* of scientists
who also believe in God; they don't think that scientific study is
pointless, though they believe that the rules may *occassionally* be
broken.                                           ---------------

You seem to think that God would want to mess up your experiments
just out of spite or something (and people say I have anthropomorphic
concepts of God).  Suppose he promised not to do that?

> I guess it comes down to a matter of trust.
> Would you trust someone's word?  or evidence?

False dichotomy.  Virtually all of the evidence I know about is
second hand.  Therefore I not only need to trust 'evidence', but
the word of someone who told me about it.  In addition, I have to
decide whether to trust the word of anyone who purports to give
me an explanation or interpretation of the evidence.  One person
sees the similarities of various life-forms and says that that
is evidence that they had a common ancestor.  Another sees the
same similarities and says that that is evidence that they had
a common creator.

> If you
> trust evidence, you must first make the assumption that that which
> your evidence supports is consistent in the context from which the
> evidence was taken.  Otherwise, the evidence is not evidence at all.

Come again?

> I must make a point about the statistics that you brought up.  There
> is no way to "prove" via evidence, something which, by definition,
> may be inconsistent.

First, my figure (99+%) was not intended as a "statistic" (let alone
"statistics") -- I just used it as shorthand for "nearly all."
Second, and more important, distinguishing a miracle from a hoax
is a historical problem more than a scientific problem, and it is
true that no historical statement can be "proved" beyond everyone's
capacity to doubt.

> Therefore, it is really difficult to figure
> out whether something is a "true" miracle or a hoax, unless someone
> spill the beans.

"Spilling the beans" doesn't help unless you trust the word of the
one doing the "spilling" (or are predisposed to accept the statement
that it is a hoax).

> The question comes down to this (in response to
> your last statement):  "How do you know that there are no miracles in
> reality?"  My answer to the question is:  "I don't know."  I cannot
> say, with confidence, that, in reality, natural laws are not violated.

> But if I allow for such violations, the study of reality becomes a
> matter of pure unadulterated blind guesswork.

(Deja vu.)  Miracles do not make the study of reality a matter of
guesswork any more than the fact that our knowledge is imperfect.
I have plans for the weekend, even though I might not be alive
that long.  I am editting this article, even though a power failure
or a disk crash could make the effort vain.  I consider the probabilities
of these events sufficiently small that I act as if they won't happen,
though I don't know that.

> There is no reason
> to study reality if the knowledge gained may not necessarily apply
> later.  I really have no problems with the fact that there is that
> distinct possibility that the rules I have studied/study/will study
> truly have no reflection on reality.

How come this possibility doesn't mean that "the study of reality
becomes a matter of pure unadulterated blind guesswork" ?  If the
rules you study have no reflection on reality, then the knowledge
gained may not necessarily apply later.

You appear to be saying that if you are wrong about the existence
and influence of God, then you would have to give up science, but
that if you are wrong about anything else, that's OK.

> I think the creationists have
> gone too far by saying that these violations DO occur and are DIRECTLY
> ATTIBUTABLE to a single entity which uses some set of thought processes
> of which our thought processes are subsets.  Violations of natural laws
> are already out of reach of scientists.  I see no legitimate reason
> to make such a specific recommendation of what "really" goes on.  Of
> course, for some, there is always the religious motive ...

>-------
> However, I am operating under the assumption that I
> cannot possibly understand God or miracles or other supernatural
> things.

I don't what to do besides suggest a different assumption: that
God (if you are willing to consider the possibility that he exists)
*wants* you to understand him, at least to some extent.

> What do you call some
> metalic machine that is capable of making more of itself simply by
> taking in raw materials from the ground?

I suppose I would call it a created being :-).

> Live long and prosper.
> Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***