1. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    18 Aug '05 19:09
    Just thought I'd move the discussion to a new thread

    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Let me explain the basic characteristic of Quantum Mechanics that is relevant to this discussion. What QM can do is predict probabilities to unerring accuracy; it has never been proven wrong. As an example, if particle A and B collide, it predicts that 96% of the time particle C will result and 4% of the time particle D will result. Millions of such interactions are observed and they match the predictions of Quantum Mechanics made beforehand as a result of mathematical formulas. But it is impossible to predict that a certain collison between particle A and B will result in particle C or D; we do not know and apparently can not know. The same principle applies to the Laws of Hereditary; we cannot know a particular result for certain but we know the probabilities. Thus, there exist some physical laws that cannot predict an individual outcome. I would think that the application of this observation to something as incredibly complex as human behavior would be obvious - Einstein said "Politics [a particulary confusing form of human behavior] is much harder than physics".

    I mentioned one observation that is consistent with Natural Law: that cultures have similar basic moral codes. At its most basic, we can the say a universal moral code would be the "Golden Rule": "do unto others as you would have them do onto you." I would maintain that this is a universally accepted societal premise and one that is conducive to societal stability. Human beings have become the dominant species on the planet due to intraspecies cooperation and empathy; it is unsurprising that our basic moral codes would strongly reflect that characteristic of our nature which has the most survival value. Call it "evolution" if you will.


    I'll post some objections in a moment.
  2. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    18 Aug '05 19:22
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Just thought I'd move the discussion to a new thread

    Originally posted by no1marauder
    [b]Let me explain the basic characteristic of Quantum Mechanics that is relevant to this discussion. What QM can do is predict probabilities to unerring accuracy; it has never been proven wrong. As an example, if particle A and B collide, it predicts that ...[text shortened]... urvival value. Call it "evolution" if you will.


    I'll post some objections in a moment.[/b]
    " Finally, it does not detract from the achievements of the human race, including the triumphs of the human intellect and the glorious works of art that have been produced for tens of thousand of years, to know that our intelligence and self-awareness, greater than those of the other animals, have emerged from the laws of biology plus the specific accidents of hominid evolution.
    When we human beings experience awe in the face of the splendors of nature, when we show love for one another, and when we care for our more distant relatives--the other organisms with which we share the biosphere--we are exhibiting aspects of the human condition that are no less wonderful for being emergent phenomena". ....Murray Gell Mann
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    18 Aug '05 19:291 edit
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Just thought I'd move the discussion to a new thread

    Originally posted by no1marauder
    [b]Let me explain the basic characteristic of Quantum Mechanics that is relevant to this discussion. What QM can do is predict probabilities to unerring accuracy; it has never been proven wrong. As an example, if particle A and B collide, it predicts that ...[text shortened]... urvival value. Call it "evolution" if you will.


    I'll post some objections in a moment.[/b]
    I see no purpose of tearing a post out of the context of a many page discussion in another thread as it will be impossible for the reader to understand what is being discussed unless we repeat old ground already covered in the other thread. Therefore, if you want to continue the discussion, keep it in the "Why do so many hate the Bible" thread"or talk to yourself.
  4. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    18 Aug '05 19:31
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I see no purpose of tearing a post out of the context of a many page discussion in another thread as it will be impossible for the reader to understand what is being discussed unless we repeat old ground already covered in the other thread. Therefore, if you want to continue the discussion, keep it in the "Why do so many hate the Bible" thread"or talk to yourself.
    can he talk to me? and Murray?
  5. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    18 Aug '05 19:392 edits
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Just thought I'd move the discussion to a new thread

    Originally posted by no1marauder
    [b]Let me explain the basic characteristic of Quantum Mechanics that is relevant to this discussion. What QM can do is predict probabilities to unerring accuracy; it has never been proven wrong. As an example, if particle A and B collide, it predicts that ...[text shortened]... urvival value. Call it "evolution" if you will.


    I'll post some objections in a moment.[/b]
    Let's leave aside the question of QM as a theory vs. law for the moment. Let's assume that QM is derived empirically.

    How would this be done? In the example provided above, a scientist might conduct 1,000 experiments of causing particles A and B to collide. He observes that particle C results 96% of the time and particle D 4% of the time. A few more scientists will perform their own set of results and produce similar results. Hence, we've constructed an empirical law of nature.

    Now, suppose another scientist were to conduct the same experiment 1,000 times, but particle C now results 60% of the time and particle D 40%. What can we conclude about the latter's experiments? Reasonably, either:

    (a) The experiment was biased, or
    (b) The law is not a true law; i.e. it has been falsified.

    For the law to hold true, it must be consistent and repeatable.

    Note also one important fact - each individual appearance of particle D does not invalidate the law. Indeed, if we suddenly saw 100% appearance of C, we would suspect one of (a) or (b) above.

    What does this mean for the Probablistic Natural Law (PNL) proposed by no1 above?

    Given that there really are moral "universals", i.e. norms and mores that are accepted in most societies across time and geography, what does this tell us? For any given society, we might see that around 96% of the population are considered "good" (i.e. their actions are morally acceptable) and 4% are considered "evil". no1 holds that the existence of "evil" people does not invalidate the law, because it is a probabilistic law.

    I agree - it does not invalidate PNL.

    In fact, it validates PNL. Just as with the experiment set I mentioned above, if we suddenly saw particle C appear 100% of the time, we would suspect that the experiment was biased or the law was invalid, if 100% of the population were to suddenly behave in a morally "good" fashion, we would suspect either that some external influence is at play here, or that PNL is invalid. no1 contends that PNL is a property of "how humans are"; so we should not expect this to happen.

    In particular, if a certain person X were to have "evil" impulses, it would not invalidate PNL, but validate it (as long as the number of X's were 4% of the population). In fact, the person would be acting in accordance with PNL if he acted on his impulse. In other words, his actions would be perfectly moral (because PNL is a moral theory)!

    So, the concepts of "moral" and "immoral" (or "good" and "evil" ) are meaningless under PNL (where people are responding to their impulses); only the concepts of "legal" and "illegal" retain any objective meaning. Since PNL governs the natures of individual human beings, each person can only be truly moral if he acts in accordance with his impulses and nature. PNL is the perfect relativist moral theory!

    In attempting to search empirically for an objective ethical theory, all no1 has managed to discover is one that is perfectly subjective.

    Discuss.

    LH

    PS: I can see a "This is BS!!!" post coming up... 😀
  6. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    18 Aug '05 19:41
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I see no purpose of tearing a post out of the context of a many page discussion in another thread as it will be impossible for the reader to understand what is being discussed unless we repeat old ground already covered in the other thread. Therefore, if you want to continue the discussion, keep it in the "Why do so many hate the Bible" thread"or talk to yourself.
    Feel free not to respond. There might still be people who've lost the point of the original post that started the thread, though.

    Besides, doesn't look like there's much meaningful discussion going on there right now.

    LH
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    18 Aug '05 19:531 edit
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Let's leave aside the question of QM as a theory vs. law for the moment. Let's assume that QM is derived empirically.

    How would this be done? In the example provided above, a scientist might conduct 1,000 experiments of causing particles A and B to collide. He observes that particle C results 96% of the time and particle D 4% of the ...[text shortened]... y subjective.

    Discuss.

    LH

    PS: I can see a "This is BS!!!" post coming up... 😀
    A waste of time; as I POINTED OUT IN THE OTHER THREAD, the fact that societies have similar moral codes is evidence of an existing Natural Law. The word "evil" is meaningless and I never used it IN THE OTHER THREAD. I have absolutely no idea what your concept of "objective: and "subjective" are; you seem to have adopted your own definitions ala Coletti. It is irrelevant anyway; Natural Law theory is simply an explanation for human behavior, not a "moral theory" at least in the sense I've described it. As for the rest, it is covered IN THE OTHER THREAD.
  8. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    18 Aug '05 20:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    A waste of time; as I POINTED OUT IN THE OTHER THREAD, the fact that societies have similar moral codes is evidence of an existing Natural Law. The word "evil" is meaningless and I never used it IN THE OTHER THREAD. I have absolutely no idea what your concept of "objective: and "subjective" are; you seem to have adopted your own definitions ala Cole ...[text shortened]... " at least in the sense I've described it. As for the rest, it is covered IN THE OTHER THREAD.
    Good dodge. Artful, I admit, but a dodge none the same.

    If PNL is an explanation of why we see common moral norms arise across societies, it also provides an explanation of why we see criminals and people whose actions are considered "morally unacceptable" (since you don't like the word "evil"😉 across societies.

    If PNL is not a moral theory, then what is it? A solution to Rubik's Cube? What use is it?
  9. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    18 Aug '05 20:12
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Feel free not to respond. There might still be people who've lost the point of the original post that started the thread, though.

    Besides, doesn't look like there's much meaningful discussion going on there right now.

    LH
    The probabalistic nature is guaranteed if you consider the universe is based on trencendental constants. Like:
    Pi
    e
    Planck's
    Avery's
    Catalan's
    Feigenbaum's
    Madelung's

    As you can readily see, the Universe is well suited for examination by study of probabalistic events.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    18 Aug '05 20:16
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Good dodge. Artful, I admit, but a dodge none the same.

    If PNL is an explanation of why we see common moral norms arise across societies, it also provides an explanation of why we see criminals and people whose actions are considered "morally unacceptable" (since you don't like the word "evil"😉 across societies.

    If PNL is not a moral theory, then what is it? A solution to Rubik's Cube? What use is it?
    An explanation for behavior and a rationale for why certain behavior can be punished. We punish murder and theft because they violate the basic fundamental rights we possess which are protected by the Natural Law. And PNL is your invention; Quantum Mechanics was given as an example of a scientific law which does not always yield predictable results in every individual instance. As I said IN THE OTHER THREAD, you are confusing evidence of the existence of a fundamental rights based, Natural Law with the Natural Law itself. You have done this in other threads as well.
  11. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    18 Aug '05 20:25
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Good dodge. Artful, I admit, but a dodge none the same.

    If PNL is an explanation of why we see common moral norms arise across societies, it also provides an explanation of why we see criminals and people whose actions are considered "morally unacceptable" (since you don't like the word "evil"😉 across societies.

    If PNL is not a moral theory, then what is it? A solution to Rubik's Cube? What use is it?
    The solution of the Rubik's cube requires non-abelian mathematics.
    To implant God into the creation of Natural Law does require a mechanism, explained possibly by Super-string Theory ,, are you ready to make that claim?
    If so : show me the math.
  12. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    18 Aug '05 21:111 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    An explanation for behavior and a rationale for why certain behavior can be punished. We punish murder and theft because they violate the basic fundamental rights we possess which are protected by the Natural Law. And PNL is your invention; Quantum Mechanics was given as an example of a scientific law which does not always yield predictable results in ev ...[text shortened]... hts based, Natural Law with the Natural Law itself. You have done this in other threads as well.
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    An explanation for behavior and a rationale for why certain behavior can be punished.

    On the contrary, as I have shown, it shows why certain behaviour should not be punished.

    We punish murder and theft because they violate the basic fundamental rights we possess which are protected by the Natural Law.

    You have yet to demonstrate any such thing. All you've done is quote Paine, who derived NL from the fundamental rights (not the other way around). And he derived the fundamental rights from the created nature of man.

    And PNL is your invention;

    I take credit for coining the term, but the theory is yours.

    Quantum Mechanics was given as an example of a scientific law which does not always yield predictable results in every individual instance.

    Every individual instance - no. A large number of instances - yes. ("100% accurate" you said).

    As I said IN THE OTHER THREAD, you are confusing evidence of the existence of a fundamental rights based, Natural Law with the Natural Law itself.

    What evidence? If NL is a universal law truly predicated of all human beings, then it will have no exceptions. If it isn't, but a probabilistic law like QM, then it will excuse all human actions. You can't have it both ways.

    If fundamental rights are truly "fundamental" (i.e. predicated of all human beings), and NL is based on the fundamental rights, then it will be a universal law.

    LH
  13. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    18 Aug '05 21:17
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    An explanation for behavior and a rationale for why certain behavior can be punished. We punish murder and theft because they violate the basic fundamental rights we possess which are protected by the Natural Law. And PNL is your invention; Quantum Mechanics was given as an example of a scientific law which does not always yield predictable results in ev ...[text shortened]... hts based, Natural Law with the Natural Law itself. You have done this in other threads as well.
    "IN THE OTHER THREAD" you said:

    Fundamental rights, Natural Law theory isn't reliant on such concepts. It merely states that as social animals we have a built in moral code based on empathy, that certain acts violate this code and such acts can be punished because they are "wrong" in the sense that they infringe the dignity of others.

    Since your moral code is "built in", it must be universal and, hence, admit of no exceptions.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    18 Aug '05 21:58
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    "IN THE OTHER THREAD" you said:

    [b]Fundamental rights, Natural Law theory isn't reliant on such concepts. It merely states that as social animals we have a built in moral code based on empathy, that certain acts violate this code and such acts can be punished because they are "wrong" in the sense that they infringe the dignity of others.

    ...[text shortened]...
    Since your moral code is "built in", it must be universal and, hence, admit of no exceptions.[/b]
    😴😴😴
  15. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    18 Aug '05 22:041 edit
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Just thought I'd move the discussion to a new thread
    ....
    I'll post some objections in a moment.[/b]
    Originally posted by no1marauder Human beings have become the dominant species on the planet due to intraspecies cooperation and empathy; it is unsurprising that our basic moral codes would strongly reflect that characteristic of our nature which has the most survival value. Call it "evolution" if you will.


    Interesting. So "Natural Law" evolved? And so these "laws" are not true for all time and all people. And if the are probabilistic - we can never be said to be true. Natural Laws are societal conventions - basically it's majority rules. They are not universal laws in any sense.

    Or one can redefine true to mean most probable - and knowledge would be what we suppose is true. So what one person knows another can not known by another. And if it is true (likely) that there's no way for anyone to know what anyone else knows - well who knows anything at all? But at least we'd still have Natural Law - sort of fuzzy rules of thumb.

    Good topic lucifershammer.
Back to Top