Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A review of the Craig v. Malpass discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A review of the Craig v. Malpass discussion

    How's it going, TWeb? Long time, no see!



    Recently, Cameron Bertuzzi hosted a discussion between William Lane Craig and Alex Malpass on the Capturing Christianity channel on YouTube. Ostensibly, the topic of their discussion is "Did the universe begin?" but in practice, their discussion focused in much more particularly upon two topics:
    1. Are actual infinites metaphysically possible?
    2. How are actual infinites constructed?

    Those of you who remember me might remember that I am particularly interested in these topics, so I've taken a bit of time to review their discussion over on my blog. Has anyone else watched this video? Anyone interested in discussing it?
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

  • #2

    No, I haven't watched that video. Stuff like that gives me a migraine.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

      No, I haven't watched that video. Stuff like that gives me a migraine.
      It's fairly interesting-- although, for a significant part of the discussion Dr. Craig and Dr. Malpass seem to be, regrettably, talking past one another. However, it is still a nice philosophical exploration of the beginning of the universe rather than the more common scientific discussion.
      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

      Comment


      • #4
        I did actually watch the video a few days ago, but I don't feel like I have anything in particular to contribute to any discussion about it. But I'll be watching this thread, reading any insightful comments that might appear here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          I did actually watch the video a few days ago, but I don't feel like I have anything in particular to contribute to any discussion about it. But I'll be watching this thread, reading any insightful comments that might appear here.
          I'll see if I can't fan the flames a little bit.

          First of all, Dr. Craig lays out the argument which he intends to defend as follows:
          1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
          2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
          3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.


          Regarding (1), the only support which Dr. Craig offers is the notion that actual infinites have counter-intuitive properties. He discusses a couple of thought experiments which illustrate this sort of strangeness, but he seems to simply jump from "this is strange" to "this is metaphysically impossible" without any justification. When Dr. Malpass notes that this behavior might be strange but that he doesn't see any logical contradictions or inconsistencies which would make us think that such things are impossible, Dr. Craig completely agrees that there is nothing logically inconsistent about actual infinites.

          I do have to comment on one thing which Dr. Craig says at 22:03 in the video which is more than just factually wrong. I'm honestly trying to be as charitable as possible to him, but I really cannot see how to explain this in any way other than Dr. Craig being deliberately dishonest. He claims:
          José Benardete, in his book on infinities, says that there’s no logical contradiction involved in these monstrosities but you have only to look at them in their concrete reality to see that this is metaphysically impossible.
          As one of those weird people who has actually read José Benardete's Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics, I'd like Dr. Craig to point out exactly where it is that he supposes Benardete makes any such claim. The entire, explicit, and clearly-stated purpose for which Benardete wrote Infinity is to stand as a philosophical defense against both metaphysical and mathematical finitists. This cannot simply be a simple misunderstanding on Dr. Craig's part. Reading any little bit of the book-- starting with the abstract on the inside cover-- Benardete is extremely clear in his intent. Either Dr. Craig has not actually read Benardete and is trying to make it seem like he has; or else he has read Benardete and is deliberately lying.

          Seriously, this would be like someone saying, "William Lane Craig writes in his published work that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is metaphysically absurd." It is that ridiculous a statement.
          Last edited by Boxing Pythagoras; 05-08-2020, 05:28 PM.
          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post

            I do have to comment on one thing which Dr. Craig says at 22:03 in the video which is more than just factually wrong. I'm honestly trying to be as charitable as possible to him, but I really cannot see how to explain this in any way other than Dr. Craig being deliberately dishonest. He claims:


            José Benardete, in his book on infinities, says that there’s no logical contradiction involved in these monstrosities but you have only to look at them in their concrete reality to see that this is metaphysically impossible.


            As one of those weird people who has actually read José Benardete's Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics, I'd like Dr. Craig to point out exactly where it is that he supposes Benardete makes any such claim. The entire, explicit, and clearly-stated purpose for which Benardete wrote Infinity is to stand as a philosophical defense against both metaphysical and mathematical finitists. This cannot simply be a simple misunderstanding on Dr. Craig's part. Reading any little bit of the book-- starting with the abstract on the inside cover-- Benardete is extremely clear in his intent. Either Dr. Craig has not actually read Benardete and is trying to make it seem like he has; or else he has read Benardete and is deliberately lying.

            Seriously, would be like someone saying, "William Lane Craig writes in his published work that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is metaphysically absurd." It is that ridiculous a statement.
            I don't think WLC was saying Benardete himself was claiming the part that I bolded, I think he's referencing Benardete in the first part, and in the bolded part he's shifting from referencing Benardete to giving his own opinion on what Benardete is saying. So the underlined is WLC referring to what Benardete is saying, while the bolded is WLC's view on the matter.

            If you listen to the relevant part of the video again you can even hear Craig's voice shift slightly when he comes to the bolded part, which to me indicates that he's no longer referring to anything Bernadete wrote, but is instead expressing his disagreement with Bernadete on the issue at hand.
            Last edited by JonathanL; 05-08-2020, 05:47 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              I consider this version of the cosmological argument to old, in fact antiquated, and out date. The simple rebuttal thought experiment would be based on the Quantum World, which as far as we know is boundless and without an arrow in time.

              The thought experiment is simple: Start with Hilbert's Infinite Inn. a boundless Quantum World, with all the rooms empty. Now let the guests come on in! There is a potential infinite room at the Inn.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-08-2020, 05:51 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                I don't think WLC was saying Benardete himself was claiming the part that I bolded, I think he's referencing Benardete in the first part, and in the bolded part he's shifting from referencing Benardete to giving his own opinion on what Benardete is saying. So the underlined is WLC referring to what Benardete's words, while the bolded is WLC's view on the matter.

                If you listen to the relevant part of the video again you can even hear Craig's voice shift slightly when he comes to the bolded part, which to me indicates that he's no longer referring to anything Bernadete wrote, but is instead expressing his disagreement with Bernadete on the issue at hand.
                I honestly don't notice any such shift in tone; however, Benardete never even refers to actual infinites as "monstrosities," even if the second half of the sentence is meant to be Dr. Craig's own thoughts. It certainly seems like Dr. Craig is attempting to cite Benardete as supporting his position-- otherwise, why reference Benardete at all? There's no need to cite another scholar simply to acknowledge that he's not claiming actual infinites are logically inconsistent.
                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  I consider this version of the cosmological argument to old and out date. The simple rebuttal thought experiment would be based on the Quantum, which as far as we know is boundless and without an arrow in time.

                  The though experiment is simple: Start with Hilbert's Infinite Inn. a boundless Quantum World, with all the rooms empty. Now let the guests come on in! There is a potential infinite room at the Inn.
                  It would not quite be accurate to say that Quantum Mechanics is boundless and without an arrow of time. The Schrödinger equation, after all, describes the evolution of a quantum system over time; and decoherence would seem to provide just as much of an arrow of time as entropy does in macroscopic physics. However, there are some speculative models on which space-time is an emergent property of quantum fields which-- if true-- would certainly seem to be a defeater for Dr. Craig's philosophy of time.
                  "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                  --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    It would not quite be accurate to say that Quantum Mechanics is boundless and without an arrow of time. The Schrödinger equation, after all, describes the evolution of a quantum system over time; and decoherence would seem to provide just as much of an arrow of time as entropy does in macroscopic physics. However, there are some speculative models on which space-time is an emergent property of quantum fields which-- if true-- would certainly seem to be a defeater for Dr. Craig's philosophy of time.
                    All models such as you mentioned are speculative I consider space-time with an arrow of time to be an emergent property of the Quantum World. Time exists in the Quantum World, but only at the Quanta scale.

                    Nonetheless the infinite Inn that is empty works!
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                      I honestly don't notice any such shift in tone; however, Benardete never even refers to actual infinites as "monstrosities," even if the second half of the sentence is meant to be Dr. Craig's own thoughts. It certainly seems like Dr. Craig is attempting to cite Benardete as supporting his position-- otherwise, why reference Benardete at all? There's no need to cite another scholar simply to acknowledge that he's not claiming actual infinites are logically inconsistent.
                      Well, I might have got the underlining vs bolded part slightly wrong, it's entirely possible that "monstrosities" is WLC's own characterization of the "absurdities of actual infinities", so the "monstrosities" part might very well belong to the bolded part, rather than the underlined.

                      And I don't think Dr. Craig is attempting to use Benardete to support his position, I think his intention might have been to simply bring up the "Benardete's book" example to showcase yet another example of how actual infinities would lead to absurdities if they could exist in the real world, and is simply explaining where he got the illustration from. So the underlined is basically WLC saying "Ok, so Benardete, who is the one from which I'm taking the illustration that follows, does not think that the following example shows that actual infinities are metaphysically impossible", and then the bolded would be Craig expressing disagreement with Bernadete on the issue, after which he proceeds to go on to describe the thought experiment of "Benardete's book".

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        I honestly don't notice any such shift in tone;
                        I don't know, at least to me it seems like Dr. Craig's voice changes slightly at around 22:12. I'm not sure if it's a shift in tone or not, I honestly don't know what all the different aspects of a voice are called, but I can clearly hear that something about Craig's voice changes at that point.

                        Plus, his facial expression also changes at the same point, it looks like he's giving a slight smile and shaking his head a little, like someone might do if they're listening to someone who's saying something they think is obviously wrong and/or absurd.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          Well, I might have got the underlining vs bolded part slightly wrong, it's entirely possible that "monstrosities" is WLC's own characterization of the "absurdities of actual infinities", so the "monstrosities" part might very well belong to the bolded part, rather than the underlined.

                          And I don't think Dr. Craig is attempting to use Benardete to support his position, I think his intention might have been to simply bring up the "Benardete's book" example to showcase yet another example of how actual infinities would lead to absurdities if they could exist in the real world, and is simply explaining where he got the illustration from. So the underlined is basically WLC saying "Ok, so Benardete, who is the one from which I'm taking the illustration that follows, does not think that the following example shows that actual infinities are metaphysically impossible", and then the bolded would be Craig expressing disagreement with Bernadete on the issue, after which he proceeds to go on to describe the thought experiment of "Benardete's book".
                          That still doesn't make sense to me.

                          Imagine, for a moment, that I had not clarified that Benardete believed the precise opposite of Dr. Craig regarding the metaphysics of infinity. Which part of Craig's statement would indicate that Benardete says something with which Craig disagrees? It's certainly not the acknowledgment that actual infinites are not logically inconsistent, as Craig himself believes that. It's not in his characterization of actual infinites as "monstrosities" or in the direct claim that they are metaphysically impossible. It is nowhere in his discussion of the infinite book. At no point does Dr. Craig make any indication that he is citing someone who believes the exact opposite of what he is saying.
                          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            It would not quite be accurate to say that Quantum Mechanics is boundless and without an arrow of time. The Schrödinger equation, after all, describes the evolution of a quantum system over time; and decoherence would seem to provide just as much of an arrow of time as entropy does in macroscopic physics. However, there are some speculative models on which space-time is an emergent property of quantum fields which-- if true-- would certainly seem to be a defeater for Dr. Craig's philosophy of time.
                            To add: I do not believe the Schrödinger equation reaches this conclusion. There are two set of equation time dependent and time-independent equations. I believe seeing the wave function in time is from the perspective of the time-space macro world.

                            Nonetheless the Quantum World from the perspective of the Schrödinger equations remains boundless.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-08-2020, 06:39 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is an actual infinity of points in every finite interval! Thus Achilles can catch the tortoise, in Zeno's paradox, by traversing an actual infinity of intervals.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              46 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X