tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246295769776967275.post157261524309478482..comments2023-12-22T00:52:34.146-08:00Comments on The World of Dr. Justice: A New Proof of the Existence of Coffee-CupsDavid Justicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12586387386542720405noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2246295769776967275.post-73282099135681865922011-08-07T07:18:17.858-07:002011-08-07T07:18:17.858-07:00Hm, let's see, I have two minor comments befor...Hm, let's see, I have two minor comments before I will, I think, soundly challenge your claim that the god-based existence of coffee-cups is tidier than a naturalistic approach to this issue.<br /><br /><br />So, let's see. You write:<br /><br />Whenever I try to read a physics article reporting recent research, it always appears at some point to be hand-waving, “You’ll just have to trust us on this.” <br /><br />My answer to this is twofold. First, of course there are no ultimate truths in science, since it is an induction-based enterprise, and I direct the interested reader to Taleb's Black Swan for nice examples of induction gone wrong. Second, theoretical physics can actually be absolute. If one accepts certain postulates and axioms the rest is just mathematics. I remember a theoretical-physics paper of a friend of mine that actually featured lemmas and proofs.<br /><br /><br />Next minor point (your writing):<br /><br />… along with some still-unnamed rules of thumb concerning our right to ignore pesky quantum-mechanical paradoxes when speaking of mid-level objects, etc. etc.) ...<br /><br />My answer to this is straight forward: we have a growing understanding of how quantum de-coherence leads to classical behaviour, and while this is admittedly work in progress, we already know enough to provide an understanding beyond some “still-unnamed rules of thumb”.<br /><br /><br />So much for minor points, now let's see what I can make of your central claim (my extension for clarification): “(EA -- concise version) God is Good → coffee-cups exist”. So far, so concise, but is it actually that concise? On the face of it yes, but there are many gods beneath it, that damage this simplicity. Let's start with the “good” assumption. Many gods come to mind that are not good at all (naughty Zeus for example), so the question then arises, whether coffee-cups ever could have been real for classical Athenians. Ah, I already here the objection: lower-case “g”! Retired gods don't count, they have to be fully employed gods, with capital “G”. Well, even then we are facing difficult issues. What about people who do not really believe in spirits and ghosts but not in full-blown Gods? What about paganists? Are they all left without coffee-cups? And what about that famous group of Gods called Hinduism? I cannot think of THE Good God in this one, but, on the other hand, there seems to be at least one God for each for bridge, etc. So, there is very likely a coffee-cup god in Hinduism (or at least one that covers coffee-cups on the side), but this still destroys the form of your argument. And what do we make of ambivalent people like Zoroastrianism, should we grant them metaphysical authority, because they not only have an explanation for coffee-cups (as per your proof), but also for coffee-cups seizing to exist (broken dreams, spilled coffee, and broken coffee-cups)?<br /><br />In conclusion, as your argument at first sight seems to be superior over naturalistic explanations when it comes to succinctness and neatness, I posit that this is just an illusion, and that a bubbling soup of religious history and contemporary religious approaches toward coffee-cups brew right below the surface.timeofwonder2009noreply@blogger.com