Does choice imply more than one actual possibility?

[His clay]

I'm currently about to start reading post 23. There are some posts that I'm skipping, but I'm trying to read the vast majority. Ugh, I just noticed that this thread is now at 141 after I post this. I'll try to wade through a lot before responding.

 

[Josheb]

Without contention, I'm asking, How does this tangent relate to the OP? I'm genuinely curious. I wondered when you asked @John Bauer if he found problems in Feynman's video.

We went here earlier as a way to deal theoretically/abstract with what is and what is not possible. Is this an attempt to discredit that earlier reference? I.e is this perhaps trying to point out that Feynman's view may well be irrelevant?

If the Feynman video is relevant to this op (as evidenced by others considering it) then its places of veracity and lack thereof are not tangential. @John Bauer is commendably analytical and I thought it would serve to change historical dynamics if he were to initiate an analysis rather than I be the one performing a forensic analysis. Part of the problem inherent when discussing this particular Christian doctrine is the matter of time because God, according to scripture, pre-exists time and, therefore, exists outside of time. In general, everyone agrees 1) time is simply a measure of cause-and-effect (or what Feynman calls "change"), and 2) time is relative. Christians generally agree time is different for God because He exists outside of that which He created (which would include time and space).

How does this tangent relate to the OP?

It's not a tangent. It is simply a focus on one relevant aspect of God's design of creation (divine cosmology) in Christianity.

I'm genuinely curious.

This is not the first time what I just said about time and its relevance to God's design of creation has been discussed by us.

 

[makesends]

The route you chose was created for you. You did not create the route or spontaneously decide to take that route. While it is "theoretically" possible for you to spontaneously decide to Dan'l Boone it cross country the fact remains, the route is established by Providence no matter which route you choose

Obviously. I don't think anyone here disputes that. What I don't get is why you mention it.

The choice is always one. If I want to go to the kitchen it is theoretically possible to climb out the window, walk around the house and go in the back door but that is theoretical which is what most of what we call choice really is. Simply alternative theoretical possibilities. Most actual choices are responses to the pressure of internal and external circumstance, also known as providence and that is the will of God.

I agree.

So being constrained by circumstances and leaving out theoretical choice, most of our choices are as self determined as a feather in a wind storm and God is the director. God created the circumstances and provides the path for the feather to float along.

Well, yes and no. What we choose is as sure to happen as a feather in a windstorm, and was so (according to my logic, anyway) from the foundation of the world. But we chose it, nonetheless, by our own will.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify half formed thoughts into coherent sentences. Not frustrating, at all

 

[QVQ]

Obviously. I don't think anyone here disputes that. What I don't get is why you mention it

The basic theological format for the Op and subsequent POV's is Aquinas
Why I mention it is because it is motion:
The First Way: Motion
1. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion.
2. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality"
3. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect.
4. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with respect to motion
5. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by something else.
6. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no motion.
7. But there is motion.
8. Therefore there is a first mover, God.

I tend to define the word "contingent" as "cause." Aquinas defined the word "contingent" as to be or not to be, which is contingent, possible.

An infinite series of movers is impossible. Yet mention possibility and the theoretical list of possib les for any given circumstance is infinite.
So maybe it is better to use contigent for possible, whether a thing can be or not within the limit of circumstance.

Theoretically I can cook anything for dinner, however whether it is actually "possible' that I am going to kill and skin a lizard, is not a contingency to be therefore not to be.
So there it is, two choices according to Some Here
But only one choice as God creates the actualities and decides on the contingencies. God chose, one act and done.

 

[His clay]

@makesends
So I've read a good chunk of the material, but I have not read all of it. Quite a bit of the discussion rubs me the wrong way because of a whole host of fallacies. I'm leaving the particulars and participants undefined at the moment. I'll take a pause for today, and maybe I'll continue reading tomorrow. That is my progress for now. From my assessment today, I'm unsure whether joining the dialogue is really worth the headache. But tomorrow is a new day, and I may be more patient and kind tomorrow.

 

[John Bauer]

Understandable. That's too bad because I'll bet we'd share common concerns about Feynman's view of time.

We are both Christians, we are both Reformed, and we are both presuppositionalists. I am sure that we share a lot of the same concerns in common when it comes to Feynman’s ideas about creation and time. As for the problems inherent in his view? They are many, some of which you touched upon. One you didn’t mention that I find a bit amusing is how he treats “scientific” as self-authenticating while the very conditions that make science possible—logic, induction, normativity, semantics—are treated as expendable “coffee arguments.”

There was also the telltale oscillation so common in non-Christian views, between a Parmenidean freeze (“all equally real”) and a Heraclitean flux (“you are the process”). Non-Christian metaphysics habitually ricochets between the One and the Many, the static and the changing, never reconciling them because it suppresses the triune God in whom unity and diversity, permanence and change, are equally ultimate without metaphysical trade-off.

We could if we both endeavored to change. Ironic given the topic.

It only takes one to start.

Without looking it up, do you know what dimensions 5 through 10 are in String Theory? (or the 11 in M-Theory, if you prefer)?

I vaguely recall Hugh Ross saying in Beyond the Cosmos (1999) that they are six hypothetical spatial dimensions tightly curled up everywhere—and I mean tight like Planck scale—located throughout our four-dimensional manifold. They are mathematical constructs, additional spatial degrees of freedom required by the maths, not empirically distinguished axes like length, width, height, or time.

Lee Smolin, my favorite theoretical physicist, would say that these extra spatial dimensions in string theory are not known to be anything at all—asking someone what they “are” is already conceding too much. They are not observed. They are not measured. String theory doesn’t even uniquely specify what those dimensions “are” in a physical, descriptive sense. They are assumptions imposed to preserve internal mathematical consistency within a particular research program.

 

[makesends]

I vaguely recall Hugh Ross saying in Beyond the Cosmos (1999) that they are six hypothetical spatial dimensions tightly curled up everywhere—and I mean tight like Planck scale—located throughout our four-dimensional manifold. They are mathematical constructs, additional spatial degrees of freedom required by the maths, not empirically distinguished axes like length, width, height, or time.

Lee Smolin, my favorite theoretical physicist, would say that these extra spatial dimensions in string theory are not known to be anything at all—asking someone what they “are” is already conceding too much. They are not observed. They are not measured. String theory doesn’t even uniquely specify what those dimensions “are” in a physical, descriptive sense. They are assumptions imposed to preserve internal mathematical consistency within a particular research program.

I keep hearing things like this, that such theories are only theoretical frameworks from which to continue to reason, a little analogous to math treating whole processes as variables. I wonder if Michio Kaku would agree that string theory was actually just a very useful way to look at the universe, and not a description of the universe. He certainly was enthusiastic about it.

 

[John Bauer]

I keep hearing things like this, that such theories are only theoretical frameworks from which to continue to reason, a little analogous to math treating whole processes as variables. I wonder if Michio Kaku would agree that string theory was actually just a very useful way to look at the universe, and not a description of the universe. He certainly was enthusiastic about it.

Michio Kaku does not have much credibility, in my opinion. He may be a legitimate theoretical physicist by training, but he functions primarily as a science popularizer and media personality. His frequent appearances on speculative TV programs—multiverses, time travel, alien intelligence, consciousness-as-physics, etc.—reflect a shift toward high-level conjecture presented with unwarranted confidence. In my books, he is only slightly more credible than Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. He is about on par with Stanton T. Friedman.

 

[makesends]

Michio Kaku does not have much credibility, in my opinion. He may be a legitimate theoretical physicist by training, but he functions primarily as a science popularizer and media personality. His frequent appearances on speculative TV programs—multiverses, time travel, alien intelligence, consciousness-as-physics, etc.—reflect a shift toward high-level conjecture presented with unwarranted confidence. In my books, he is only slightly more credible than Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. He is about on par with Stanton T. Friedman.

Bill Nye???!!! Wow, you know how to hurt a guy!

 

[Josheb]

I am sure that we share a lot of the same concerns in common when it comes to Feynman’s ideas about creation and time. As for the problems inherent in his view? They are many, some of which you touched upon. One you didn’t mention that I find a bit amusing is how he treats “scientific” as self-authenticating while the very conditions that make science possible—logic, induction, normativity, semantics—are treated as expendable “coffee arguments.”

Yep. He often waxed philosophical rather than scientific.

The point of it all is that the reality of time is much more useful for understanding God's design of creation than Feynman's particular views and a secularized or atheistic view is of limited value (especially if what we believe is true ). This is also true because we (scientists, humans) have a better grasp of time and creation than Feynman did at the time of that interview. If string or M are correct and the unknown dimensions have to do with multiple universe, and multiple histories, and multiple possibilities, then that informs the inquiry of this op.

There was also the telltale oscillation so common in non-Christian views, between a Parmenidean freeze (“all equally real”) and a Heraclitean flux (“you are the process”). Non-Christian metaphysics habitually ricochets between the One and the Many, the static and the changing, never reconciling them because it suppresses the triune God in whom unity and diversity, permanence and change, are equally ultimate without metaphysical trade-off.

It only takes one to start.

Yep. Sorta. It takes two to fight.

I vaguely recall Hugh Ross saying in Beyond the Cosmos (1999) that they are six hypothetical spatial dimensions tightly curled up everywhere—and I mean tight like Planck scale—located throughout our four-dimensional manifold. They are mathematical constructs, additional spatial degrees of freedom required by the maths, not empirically distinguished axes like length, width, height, or time.

Lee Smolin, my favorite theoretical physicist, would say that these extra spatial dimensions in string theory are not known to be anything at all—asking someone what they “are” is already conceding too much. They are not observed. They are not measured. String theory doesn’t even uniquely specify what those dimensions “are” in a physical, descriptive sense. They are assumptions imposed to preserve internal mathematical consistency within a particular research program.

Green-Schwarz Theory says the latter dimensions are "compactified" (dimensions within the first four dimensions) spatial dimensions occurring on a sub-atomic level invisible to current tech. Loop Quantum Gravity Theory takes an entirely different approach and hypothesizes pocketed or "loops" of networks, each creating and having their own geometry which, if true, would, as far as this op's inquiry goes, mean there are potentially an infinite number of determinisms (varying degrees of determinism) by God. This would make a certain sense when we consider the vastly different degrees of functional independence described in the Bible regarding animals, angels, sinless versus sinful, etc. The holograph theories might prove this op's determinism because someone or something has got to be projecting the projection. Or, what we observe, and experience here could be much more dynamic in the real thing. Or, from the eternal perspective maybe this has all already happened from God's pov in a way far beyond temporal relativity and this entire thread has already run its course while we think (imagine) it is ongoing). Other theories hypothesize the universe, or portions of it, are creating and re-creating itself.


All of which is to say, 1) Science doesn't yet know what's its talking about and, therefore, 2) science is useful but limited for the purpose of this op's inquiry. Creation could be radically, strictly, meticulously deterministic far more than anyone (even the ardent determinist) is comfortable with, or much more undetermined (which some also might find uncomfortable, perhaps even the point of losing faith).

 

[makesends]

It takes two to fight.

Just saw a meme on this yesterday: "It takes two to fight; so it's not just your wife's fault—it's her mother's fault, as well!"

 

[John Bauer]

Green-Schwarz theory says the latter dimensions are "compactified" (dimensions within the first four dimensions) spatial dimensions occurring on a sub-atomic level invisible to current tech.

I think there is some confusion at work here. For one thing, there is no such theory. You are referring to the Green–Schwarz mechanism discovered in the 1980s to fix certain mathematical anomalies that break key symmetries in superstring theory (Wikipedia). And the idea that these extra spatial dimensions are compactified was already a standard assumption in string theory generally before we got the the Green–Schwarz proposal.

Loop quantum gravity theory takes an entirely different approach and hypothesizes pocketed or "loops" of networks, each creating and having their own geometry—which, if true, would, as far as this OP's inquiry goes, mean there are potentially an infinite number of determinisms (varying degrees of determinism) by God.

I am not following your logic here. How do you get from compactified spatial dimensions to degrees of determinism? That seems non sequitur. I mean, determinism is about causal sufficiency, not spatial topology.

And loop quantum gravity does not posit “pocketed” or separate causal domains with their own “determinisms.” It proposes that spacetime itself has loop-based, network-like mathematical structures used to represent quantum geometry (Wikipedia). It works within our four-dimensional manifold and makes spacetime itself dynamic and granular. See Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (Basic Books, 2001), where he discusses three approaches to quantum gravity, with a substantial emphasis on his own work in LQG.

To be honest, I am not sure what you’re even trying to argue. You have invoked two competing approaches to reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity—in an argument against meticulous determinism?—from string theory to loop quantum gravity. Or are you ambitiously trying to combine them? But even then I still can’t figure out how that would relate to the opening post. It sounds to me like you are interpreting biblical language on the basis of modern theoretical physics.

And to add to that confusion, you threw in the holographic principle on top of that. I don’t get it. (If it’s clear in your head, it is not coming across as clear in your writing.)

This would make a certain sense when we consider the vastly different degrees of functional independence described in the Bible regarding animals, angels, sinless versus sinful, etc.

[Emphasis added.]

Functional independence? Independent of what?

All of which is to say: (1) Science doesn't yet know what's its talking about and, therefore, (2) science is useful but limited for the purpose of this OP's inquiry.

I must have missed something along the way: Who has attempted to use science to answer the OP?

 

[Josheb]

I think there is some confusion at work here. For one thing, there is no such theory. You are referring to the Green–Schwarz mechanism ....

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I stand corrected. The point is that 1) humanity does not yet understand time and 2) because physicists don't consider the existence of God germane, 3) the science is limitedly useful for ops like this, and 4) their opinions have no veracity in threads like this.

To be honest, I am not sure what you’re even trying to argue....

Then ask op-relevant questions. What were you trying to argue with the introduction of Feynman's views?

I must have missed something along the way: Who has attempted to use science to answer the OP?

Feynman .



My observations were not intended to create a tangent. They were intended to qualify the use of Feynman.

 

[John Bauer]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I stand corrected.

Notwithstanding the wave-off there, I want to note the humility of admitting that you stand corrected. That deserves recognition.

The point is that (1) humanity does not yet understand time and, (2) because physicists don't consider the existence of God germane, (3) the science is limitedly useful for ops like this and (4) their opinions have no veracity in threads like this.

1. Humanity does not yet understand time.

True. In fact, humanity understands precious little about the universe—and even less about God.

2. Physicists don't consider the existence of God germane.

If by this you mean that physics brackets God by methodological design, neither including nor excluding God, than I consider this true as well.

3. Science is of limited usefulness for threads like this.

True—but with a caveat: It is limited, but not irrelevant.

4. The opinions of physicists have no veracity in threads like this.

Zero veracity? Literally none at all? This is an overreach. To say their opinions have no veracity is false. They have limited, domain-specific veracity that is also provisional and defeasible.

Irony Award: Given points 2–4, it is ironic that you were the one to raise string theory, the Green–Schwarz mechanism, loop quantum gravity, and the holographic principle.

If you hold that physics, since it methodologically brackets God, is of limited usefulness for theological questions, and that the opinions of physicists thus have no veracity in such threads, then appealing to those things in an argument against meticulous determinism is a performative contradiction.

Not a significant point. Just entertaining.

Then ask OP-relevant questions.

I did—implicitly. I said that I can’t figure out how this relates to the opening post. In other words, “How does this relate to the opening post?”

I also said that it sounds like you’re interpreting biblical language on the basis of modern theoretical physics. In other words, “Are you interpreting biblical (or theological) language on the basis of modern theoretical physics?”

If those were too subtle, I will endeavor to be more explicit for your sake.

What were you trying to argue with the introduction of Feynman's views?

Nothing. I didn’t cite Feynman in support of an argument (here). I thought his perspective could add helpful insight and language to a discussion involving time—a conversational resource, not a theological authority. If you disagree, that’s perfectly okay.

For example, I thought it was relevant and interesting that he thought “the past, the present, and the future all exist simultaneously,” a helpful picture when thinking about a God who transcends the created order and holds the movie reel in his hand (thus, for him, “the end of the movie exists at the same time as the beginning”).

It was also helpful when @makesends said that he sees time as “effecting and affecting results in this temporal universe,” making Feynman’s opinion particularly relevant to consider when he said that time “doesn’t reach into the fridge and sour your milk,” and so on (here). In other words, time is not effecting results, just as inches or kilograms do not effect results.

Who has attempted to use science to answer the OP?

Feynman .

I don’t know what you were going for here, since a man who has been dead for almost 40 years can’t know about this thread, much less attempt to answer the opening post using science.

So, I ask again: “Who has attempted to use science to answer the OP?”

You said that “science is useful but limited for the purpose of this OP's inquiry,” as if someone was using science to answer it. I was not, and neither was @makesends. So, who was?

My observations were not intended to create a tangent. They were intended to qualify the use of Feynman.

The use of Feynman was already qualified. And it was also not for answering the OP.

But thanks.

 

[Josheb]

3. Science is of limited usefulness for threads like this.

True—but with a caveat: It is limited, but not irrelevant.

Yep.

4. The opinions of physicists have no veracity in threads like this.

Zero veracity? Literally none at all? This is an overreach. To say their opinions have no veracity is false. They have limited, domain-specific veracity that is also provisional and defeasible.

Yes, zero veracity because, yes, it's likely everything Feynman said in that video will be revised in 100-150 years. Some of it will remain. Most, not so much. That is the unstated truth about science. That's how science works. Science is a process of near-constant revision (much like reform in theology).

Irony Award: Given points 2–4, it is ironic that you were the one to raise string theory, the Green–Schwarz mechanism, loop quantum gravity, and the holographic principle.

If you hold that physics, since it methodologically brackets God, is of limited usefulness for theological questions, and that the opinions of physicists thus have no veracity in such threads, then appealing to those things in an argument against meticulous determinism is a performative contradiction.

Not a significant point. Just entertaining.

It's an irrelevant not-a-significant point given the point was simply and solely to highlight the limited use of modern physics and the somewhat antiquated nature of Feynman's views.

I did—implicitly. I said that I can’t figure out how this relates to the opening post. In other words, “How does this relate to the opening post?”


I also said that it sounds like you’re interpreting biblical language on the basis of modern theoretical physics. In other words, “Are you interpreting biblical (or theological) language on the basis of modern theoretical physics?”

Yep.

Nothing. I didn’t cite Feynman in support of an argument (here). I thought his perspective could add helpful insight and language to a discussion involving time—a conversational resource, not a theological authority. If you disagree, that’s perfectly okay.

For example, I thought it was relevant and interesting that he thought “the past, the present, and the future all exist simultaneously,” a helpful picture when thinking about a God who transcends the created order and holds the movie reel in his hand (thus, for him, “the end of the movie exists at the same time as the beginning”).

It was also helpful when @makesends said that he sees time as “effecting and affecting results in this temporal universe,” making Feynman’s opinion particularly relevant to consider when he said that time “doesn’t reach into the fridge and sour your milk,” and so on (here). In other words, time is not effecting results, just as inches or kilograms do not effect results.

Yep.

I don’t know what you were going for here...

Yep

, since a man who has been dead for almost 40 years can’t know about this thread, much less attempt to answer the opening post using science.

So, I ask again: “Who has attempted to use science to answer the OP?”

The person who "...thought his perspective could add helpful insight and language to a discussion involving time."

You said that “science is useful but limited for the purpose of this OP's inquiry,” as if someone was using science to answer it. I was not, and neither was @makesends. So, who was?

The use of Feynman was already qualified. And it was also not for answering the OP.

But thanks.

There is no need to defend Feynman or the introduction of his video. Just a greater need to qualify that information. I might have used more accessible sources like Rovelli or Kaku and had the same problem.

 

[John Bauer]

Yep.

“Ask an OP-relevant question,” Josh said.

“I did,” I replied, showing where.

“Yep,” he responded.

Okay, well, that was a very devastating and well-argued critique he defended there. I am undone.

Yes, zero veracity—because, yes, it's likely everything Feynman said in that video will be revised in 100-150 years. Some of it will remain. Most, not so much. That is the unstated truth about science. That's how science works. Science is a process of near-constant revision (much like reform in theology).

A self-defeating argument

I ask you, reader, if you can track Josh’s logic here. It may not be obvious at first but take a look. He just argued that if something you assert provisionally now could be revised within the next 100 years or so, then what you assert provisionally now has zero veracity or truth-value. [1] And he says this applies to not only science but also theology.

But that is self-referentially incoherent because its proponent is fallible. In other words, the claims Josh asserts today—the interpretations of Scripture, the theological assertions, the philosophical analyses—could be overturned at some point in the future. (In fact, I am sure that he has already experienced beliefs being overturned and replaced with more biblically or theologically consistent ones. I doubt he was born with his current set of beliefs.)

According to his own argument, that means he presently has zero veracity.

Either (a) revisable claims can be true, in which case revisability is irrelevant to veracity, or (b) revisable claims can’t be true (zero veracity), in which case the claim “revisable claims can’t be true” is itself without truth-value.

I don’t know about you, reader, but I prefer the more modest claim that people like Feynman have “limited, domain-specific veracity that is also provisional and defeasible.”

A false claim about science

The unstated truth about science, he said, is that its offerings are likely to be revised, even substantially, as new evidence is discovered.

But that is hopelessly naïve, because the reality is that it isn’t unstated at all. Not only are scientists and science communicators very transparent and candid about the tentative and provisional nature of scientific ideas and conclusions (Wikipedia), but the very history of science bears this out, as one idea after another has been revised or replaced (e.g., static universe).

Here is the point: Just because a claim is revisable, that doesn’t mean it has no truth-value now.

“It’s likely that everything Feynman said in that video will be revised in 100–150 years,” he said—essentially repeating what I had just finished saying (“provisional and defeasible”).

Maybe it only has veracity if it comes from his keyboard, so he was doing me a favor by repeating it.

It's an irrelevant not-a-significant point, given the point was simply and solely to highlight the limited use of modern physics and the somewhat antiquated nature of Feynman's views.

He doesn’t seem to understand that’s precisely why his invoking modern physics was ironic.

Notice, too, that right after he claimed modern physics has zero veracity, he wants to highlight its (limited) usefulness in these discussions.

This is great stuff.

Yep. … Yep. … Yep.

Observe the complete non-answer response, despite my specific questions. "Do unto others" and all that.

Who has attempted to use science to answer the OP?

Feynman .

[He is not here. In fact, he is long dead.] I ask again: “Who has attempted to use science to answer the OP?”

[You did.]

I have contributed 23 posts now to this thread. In how many of them did I attempt to use science to answer the OP?

Exactly. We can all verify the answer: Zero.

I referred to Feyman five times:

1. I introduced Feynman’s ideas on time as a conversational resource (here).
   
   ​
2. I engaged @makesends questions and concerns about Feynman’s talk (here).
   
   ​
3. I shared a new link with @makesends, who wanted to give it a listen (here).
   
   ​
4. I answered Josh regarding the problems inherent with Feynman’s view (here).
   
   ​
5. I critically scrutinized Josh‘s attempt to use science to answer the OP (here).

While I did attempt to answer the OP, it was not in any of those five references to Feynman or science.

If memory serves, I think we have a member who has little patience for those who seem to ignore what he takes care and time to write.

There is no need to defend Feynman or the introduction of his video.

He is right about that. There is, however, a need to correct Josh’s errors, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.

I might have used more accessible sources like Rovelli or Kaku and had the same problem.

That problem, of course, being that Rovelli and Kaku have zero veracity because their views, like Josh’s, are revisable.

---

Footnotes:

[1] Let’s expose the hidden premise: “If a claim is revisable, then it lacks truth-value” (wherein veracity tracks truthfulness or correspondence to reality). But then maybe Josh didn’t mean veracity, despite saying it.

 

[Josheb]

According to his own argument, that means he presently has zero veracity.

{Edit}. Some things persist because they are true. The entirety of Newtonian physics dd not disappear because of Einstein. Science revises itself every century or so but that does not mean everything it has uncovered is discarded. Feynman has been dead less than 40 years and already the views expressed in that video are becoming antiquated..... yet some of what he said will likely persist because it is correct. Wherever you or I, or anyone else here, expresses what is true and correct that content will persist no matter how much theology progresses as a whole toward understanding God's true.

You screwed up.

There is, however, a need to correct Josh’s errors, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.

No, there's not. Mainly because I am correct, but also because the entire post is off topic (and you're a mod).

“Ask an OP-relevant question,” Josh said.

“I did,” I replied, showing where.

“Yep,” he responded.

Okay, well, that was a very devastating and well-argued critique he defended there. I am undone.



A self-defeating argument

I ask you, reader, if you can track Josh’s logic here. It may not be obvious at first but take a look. He just argued that if something you assert provisionally now could be revised within the next 100 years or so, then what you assert provisionally now has zero veracity or truth-value. [1] And he says this applies to not only science but also theology.

But that is self-referentially incoherent because its proponent is fallible. In other words, the claims Josh asserts today—the interpretations of Scripture, the theological assertions, the philosophical analyses—could be overturned at some point in the future. (In fact, I am sure that he has already experienced beliefs being overturned and replaced with more biblically or theologically consistent ones. I doubt he was born with his current set of beliefs.)

According to his own argument, that means he presently has zero veracity.

Either (a) revisable claims can be true, in which case revisability is irrelevant to veracity, or (b) revisable claims can’t be true (zero veracity), in which case the claim “revisable claims can’t be true” is itself without truth-value.

I don’t know about you, reader, but I prefer the more modest claim that people like Feynman have “limited, domain-specific veracity that is also provisional and defeasible.”

A false claim about science

The unstated truth about science, he said, is that its offerings are likely to be revised, even substantially, as new evidence is discovered.

But that is hopelessly naïve, because the reality is that it isn’t unstated at all. Not only are scientists and science communicators very transparent and candid about the tentative and provisional nature of scientific ideas and conclusions (Wikipedia), but the very history of science bears this out, as one idea after another has been revised or replaced (e.g., static universe).

Here is the point: Just because a claim is revisable, that doesn’t mean it has no truth-value now.

“It’s likely that everything Feynman said in that video will be revised in 100–150 years,” he said—essentially repeating what I had just finished saying (“provisional and defeasible”).

Maybe it only has veracity if it comes from his keyboard, so he was doing me a favor by repeating it.



He doesn’t seem to understand that’s precisely why his invoking modern physics was ironic.

Notice, too, that right after he claimed modern physics has zero veracity, he wants to highlight its (limited) usefulness in these discussions.

This is great stuff.



Observe the complete non-answer response, despite my specific questions. "Do unto others" and all that.



I have contributed 23 posts now to this thread. In how many of them did I attempt to use science to answer the OP?

Exactly. We can all verify the answer: Zero.

I referred to Feyman five times:

1. I introduced Feynman’s ideas on time as a conversational resource (here).
   
   ​
2. I engaged @makesends questions and concerns about Feynman’s talk (here).
   
   ​
3. I shared a new link with @makesends, who wanted to give it a listen (here).
   
   ​
4. I answered Josh regarding the problems inherent with Feynman’s view (here).
   
   ​
5. I critically scrutinized Josh‘s attempt to use science to answer the OP (here).

While I did attempt to answer the OP, it was not in any of those five references to Feynman or science.

If memory serves, I think we have a member who has little patience for those who seem to ignore what he takes care and time to write.



He is right about that. There is, however, a need to correct Josh’s errors, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.



That problem, of course, being that Rovelli and Kaku have zero veracity because their views, like Josh’s, are revisable.

---

Footnotes:

[1] Let’s expose the hidden premise: “If a claim is revisable, then it lacks truth-value” (wherein veracity tracks truthfulness or correspondence to reality). But then maybe Josh didn’t mean veracity, despite saying it.

Meh

Read the post twice and cannot find a single mention of "choice," "possibility," or "determinism." This has become the tangent no one intended and I have no interest in examining every tree in order to avoid seeing the forest. I made my point. It's a valid point. You agreed with it. Belaboring to the point of unintended digression is self-defeating. Moving on.

 

[His clay]

I am arranging this under numbers for clarity of reference in argument. Ignore or use the numbers to your heart's content. (Pun intended).

1) Watching RC Sproul's talk, "Have You Lost Your Mind?", it occurred to me that maybe some of those who so vehemently oppose my notion that whatever happens does so by God's decree and by God's causation do so because they take me to be referring to material determinism alone, and that they take me to suppose that the thoughts and intentions of the heart (the mind) are only materially derived by long-chain causation or shorter-chain intervention by God. I can't say for sure if that's what's going on, but I utterly reject the notion that I have seen espoused by @Josheb (and a few others who have implied the same) that the will is, but for the matter of salvation, capable of free action of its own independent spontaneity. In my expression of what they say, they, like the Arminian and the Pelagian, assert the self-contradictory notion that God has ordained that our choices can be in some way uncaused. So I'm wondering how they can say that.

Josh. Correct me, please, if I have misrepresented what you believe.

2) Any others, please chime in. I want to know how the command necessarily implies the possibility of obedience. I want to know how anything can happen that does not happen. I want to know how our temporal view defines fact—so that our expression by ignorance (we say, "maybe") is an expression of truth rather than simply a mention that we don't know what will be.

3) Let me mention one tangent that I consider irrelevant to this thread's arguments. Please do not get into trying to prove free will by arguments about moral responsibility and God's fairness. That is not the point of this thread—pro, nor con. I'm looking for how it is even possible for what we choose to be actually spontaneous, in the face of God's causation. And PLEASE don't argue, assuming that because we say things the way we do, that things are so—eg, don't argue that something is "possible" just because we don't know what will happen.

4) Let me mention one relevant tangent: It seems that the question of meticulous causation can be viewed from several directions. Is God, in creating first effect(s), only beginning chains of causation to develop on their own? Does God, in intervening, "control" moral agents in opposition to their will? Does Divine Immanence imply anything here?

5) And one more: Is the [at least one] supposed exception, Regeneration, really an exception? Or maybe it is the other way around —that Regeneration is the standard, and Salvation the norm, from which all of our assumed facts are exceptions and deviations? Is Creation intended and designed THERE, with all else being either other than that, or part of that? —Feel free to ignore this question if you don't understand what I am getting at here. It is a difficult notion for me to express. But it is related to this —that God is the Real, compared to this temporal existence the Bible refers to as a vapor.

I'll try to move through the opening post point by point. The aim is to offer a few summarized and abbreviated points. My numbering will correspond to your numbering.

(1) It is important to correct the causal conflation fallacy. It is essentially the reductionistic tendency to reduce complex causal systems down to only one level. It is a fallacy plain and simple. Calvinists get this all the time when dealing with God's decree over all things. I've outlined this fallacy in greater detail in another thread. Link following.
https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/
Most often we see this fallacy when accused of robots or automatons. We have received the puppet accusation. We also see this fallacy when Open Theists tell us that they hold to a dynamic view of God's providence while the Calvinist view is again reduced down to some cheesy level of fallacy. Calvinists can hold to a dynamic view of interaction precisely because their "means-as-well-as-the-end" view. Dynamic interaction is built into the ordained system, and eventually it becomes clear that the issue is not "dynamic" vs "automatic" but rather the issue is a God-defined view of reality and identity vs a man-defined view of reality and identity. I tend to view the "dynamic" point as a cheesy and stupid reductionistic whine against Calvinism; it is verbiage accomplishing nothing other than demonstrating the man-focused assumptions of the objector. (God determined vs man determined)

Obviously, a biblical Calvinist would at least endorse the material and the immaterial, so I totally agree with the materialistic caution. More is going on than the material level, and you are right to point out that materialism does not describe your view.

An uncaused view of the will is typically reserved for libertarian freedom, which is the main driving force behind the various anti-Calvinistic views. Greater than that is the assumption of autonomy.

(2) Command and ability. My memory is a bit fuzzy on all the details that Jonathan Edwards covered. However, I've always appreciated his illustration of the distinction between physical inability and moral inability. His illustration is of two men in prison. The first man is paid a visit by the king. The man is told that he is free to leave. However, the prison bars and gates are still shut and locked. The chains and locks are still present upon the man's wrists and ankles. He is physically unable to leave. No one would fault him for being unable to leave the prison, and sadly, all to often this is the perception that people have of Calvinism, and they are wrong to have that perception.

The second man is also paid a visit by the king. The king opening the doors, unlocks the chains, and removes every physical hindrance to the prisoner. The king then announces to the prisoner that he has been given the opportunity to leave, but there is one condition. The man must bow down to the king in a true heartfelt way, truly repent of his crimes, and become a loyal subject for life. If this man truly demonstrates a change of heart and action, then he is completely free to leave. Unfortunately, this situation is a bit more complex than meets the eye. The man is in prison for treason. The man hates the king will all his heart, and bitterness and contempt have complete mastery over him. He will not repent, for his animosity is too great. He hates the king, and will not repent.

All can see the obvious difference, both between the type of causation as well as the difference between physical inability and moral inability. It is not hard to see how physical inability can excuse a person, but moral inability definitely does not excuse a person. In both situations a person was bound and unable, but the quality of the binding is vastly different.

(3) I don't think that my description above fits into what you were seeking to avoid. My critique of libertarian freedom is in the forum for all to see. I hold a consistent position against libertarian freedom. Link provided.
https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/libertarian-freedom-a-critique.2187/

(4) Opposition to their will? The non-Calvinistic rant would say that Calvinism presents a god that forces people to do what he wants. But that is the furthest thing from the truth. The type of causation matters, but this is often ignored because the standard for the non-C is that if anything takes way from human ultimacy of choice, then it is force. However, that is merely begging the question. At least two other views exist. One would be the agnostic view, where one simply says that he/she does not know. The other points to a different definition of responsible human action; it does not need human ultimacy (i.e. an uncaused choice or person). Rather, freedom should be judged upon a lesser standard of doing as one most prefers, and to choose is to prefer. In the second case, now we are dealing with compatibilism, and this view is compatible with God's sovereign hand over the choice. There is no opposition of the will, for the person does as he most prefers, and human ultimacy is irrelevant to the issue of force or coercion.

(5) I'm not too sure where you are going with this, but I can comment on the final sentence. Yes, our temporal existence may be a vapor, but this does not mean it is unreal. God is the standard of reality, and what He creates and sustains is real. Yes, there is a Creator/creature distinction, and yes this distinction entails that God is ultimately self-sufficient while the creation is dependent, but this dependency does not establish the premise of creation being unreal. Certainly, God's being is different than ours, but God has created and established creational reality.

Now, perhaps you are saying that God's level of reality is greater than ours, and on that point I agree. You used the word "Real," and perhaps you were distinguishing between "Real" and "real".

Due to some problematic elements in this thread, I'm going to leave this as my only interaction.

 

[John Bauer]

Some things persist because they are true. … Science revises itself every century or so but that does not mean everything it has uncovered is discarded. Feynman has been dead less than 40 years and already the views expressed in that video are becoming antiquated—yet some of what he said will likely persist because it is correct.

(All emphases mine.)

Read again, carefully, what Josh just said here. Notice the implication, that his original statement (”zero veracity”) was an overreach—exactly like I said.

I did not screw up, as it turns out.

No, there's not [a need to correct my errors, falsehoods, and misrepresentations], mainly because I am correct but also because the entire post is off topic (and you're a mod).

Is Josh always correct? Of course not—which, presumably, any Christian would freely admit. (Does he? Not here, anyway.)

The question arises quite naturally: Should errors be corrected? I assume any rational and honest person would answer affirmatively. One would think it’s the easiest thing in the world to admit: “Of course I’m not always correct, and of course my errors should be corrected.”

But here we have Josh refusing to admit either. That is worth noting.

MOD HAT: Rule 4.9 prohibits members from acting like moderators, which includes explaining or interpreting the rules or referencing any rule violations. If the “entire post is off-topic,” hit the Report button and a moderator will make a determination (cf. 6.3).

Yes, I am a mod. But Josh is not.

Meh

Read the post twice and cannot find a single mention of "choice," "possibility," or "determinism."

As any competent reader can recognize, it’s because that post was my answer to Josh’s erroneous claims about truth, science, and Feynman. It is understandable if Josh would prefer that I ignore them and talk about OP-related issues, but I responded to his claims instead.

Nevertheless, anyone interested in reading my engagements on choice, possibility, and determinism—Josh included—can read them in this thread here and here (responding to Makesends), here, here, and here (responding to Josh), and here, here, and here (responding to QVQ).

And those are only some of my posts on those issues in this thread.

I made my point. It's a valid point. You agreed with it.

What point is that? (It is a rhetorical question. I believe he won’t answer.) I disagreed with a lot more than I agreed with—and I carefully explained why. Moreover, some of his points certainly were not valid, like revisability entailing zero veracity (a claim he has now abandoned). There was also no validity to his claim that I used science to answer the opening post. And so on.

Anyway, I am content to likewise move on.

 

[John Bauer]

My memory is a bit fuzzy on all the details that Jonathan Edwards covered. However, I've always appreciated his illustration of the distinction between physical inability and moral inability. … All can see the obvious difference, both between the type of causation as well as the difference between physical inability and moral inability. It is not hard to see how physical inability can excuse a person, but moral inability definitely does not excuse a person. In both situations a person was bound and unable, but the quality of the binding is vastly different.

I have always appreciated how clearly Mitch Cervinka articulated this distinction:

It is generally true that in order to be responsible a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it!

The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities, nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness—and this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.