We've all said it at one time or another: "I'm working on it." Whether we mean losing weight, or getting our chores done around the house, we all mean the same thing: Please don't bug me, I'm trying to get it done, it's just going to take more time.
Well, I am working on my philosophy of knowledge. I haven't forgotten you. The problem is that what seemed fairly straight forward is turning out to be much more complicated. Right now, I'm trying to find a proof for the independent existence of things that are not me and the persistence of those things outside my own perception.
Frankly, the easy road would be to just add these two concepts to my list of postulates. However, neither seems so basic that it can't be proven. Also, I don't want to get into the habit of just "postulating" anything I find difficult to prove.
Please bear with me and I will keep you apprised of my progress. And, if you have any insight or suggested reading, by all means, let me know. I could certainly use the help.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Before We Begin...
On Sunday, I posted that I was going to "try and develop, with a mathematically rigorous process, the basis of knowledge and all it's derivatives." Before we begin, I should explain the goal a little more clearly.
The goal is to develop, from foundational postulates to final truths, a coherent, reasonable philosophy of knowledge and understanding. At it's end state, I will have shown that faith in Jesus Christ as the source of my salvation is both intellectually defensible and justified by the weight of the evidence.
What I am not doing is attempting to prove the existence of God. Nor am I attempting to justify His will or His means of salvation. God does not need me to defend Him. He is the creator and king over the entire universe.
Mathematically Rigorous Process
I do not intend to create a mathematical proof of my philosophy, but rather I intend to hold myself to making no assumptions, except where foundational and irreducible. Additionally, each step in my philosophy must logically stem from all previous work. There are to be no inexplicable leaps. This is where I will need your help the most. As I have no formal education in philosophy, I will be learning as I go. If you find a weakness or mistake in my logic, please tell me, so I can adjust.
Next Post: Here We Go!
Sunday, December 13, 2009
The Least You Must Know
I may be trying to create a rationally defensible, rigorous foundation for my faith. However, the beauty of the Bible is that the essentials are simple enough that a small child can understand them, while men and women much smarter than I can spend lifetimes delving its depths without exhausting all there is to learn from God.
Before I launch into the esoteric, I want to take a moment to explain the basics.
Before I launch into the esoteric, I want to take a moment to explain the basics.
- Everyone has done wrong.
- Everyone who does wrong is separated from God.
- God loves us so much He died on a cross to pay the penalty for our wrong doing.
- If you truly accept God's sacrifice as payment for your wrong doing, you will be reunited with God.
That's it. That's all you really need to know.
If anyone desires to know how to "truly accept God's sacrifice", please contact me at: matthew looman 92 at hot mail dot com. (Take out the spaces, change the at to @ and the dot to . for my email address.)
A fresh start???
Ok, so this is my second or third attempt to keep this blog up to date. I can't blame you if you're skeptical that this attempt will fare any better than the last. Honestly, I feel the same way. So, we're not going to put any pressure on me. Deal?
So where am I going this time? Well, I've decided to go further back than the beginnings of the universe, life, and such. Instead, I have been contemplating the beginning of knowledge itself. Not where knowledge began, but the foundation of my knowledge which results in my faith. So, I'm going to try and develop, with a mathematically rigorous process, the basis of knowledge and all it's derivatives.
First of all, I am only hopeful that I can pursue this study because Proverbs 1:7 tells us "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." No true knowledge can be acquired apart from the LORD. Whether you acknowledge God or not, all things still originate and have their being in Him. For those who do not accept God, they can still only know truth by admitting the eternal character of God in the works of His hand. Namely, the universe obeys constant, unchanging laws and truth can only be known, because it is true and unchanging.
I began this quest by starting with the fact I believe these statements to be true, because I believe the Bible is true. (You could say that the basis for belief in Christ as the creator is based in my belief in the veracity of the Bible.) Next, I believe the Bible is true, because I believe that the account of Christ recorded in the Bible, which I believe because the weight of the evidence for Christ's life, miracles, death and resurrection proves this beyond reasonable doubt. So you see how each belief (each truth) is only true, so long as it is based on another truth. If any of the truths prove false, then all of the dependent truths become suspect. So, as I worked backwards, I began to realize, that there are some fundamental issues of from which I might develop a rational philosophy of knowledge and truth.
Please understand that I undertake this effort, firm in my conviction that faith in the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ will be justified by the rational arguments I plan on using. To each man I say understand the foundation of your faith as far as you are able. If you can only believe because you have been told by someone whom you trust, then rest on that knowledge. If you are able to understand all philosophy and spent years working in that field, then evaluate your knowledge in light of the real and convincing proofs that exist. If you are in between, then pursue your understanding as far as you are able, and then stretch a little further. You will not be excused if you have decided to oppose the LORD in your beliefs, even if you consider your efforts at understanding sincere.
To all, regardless of your worldview, I ask your patience and assistance where my efforts fall short of the goal. Only in so much that this effort be to the glory of God, do I undertake it. So to those who are Christians, believing on Christ for their salvation, I ask you to hold me accountable. To warn me against sin and error and to correct me if I fall. Though God is perfect I am not. God's ways are beyond our understanding and his thoughts are above our thoughts. Therefore, this is not an attempt to prove God, to defend Him or justify his ways. This is only an attempt to show, by rational argument, why trusting God and placing your faith in Jesus Christ is not only reasonable, but the only way to obtain salvation from your sins and inherit eternal life.
NEXT: The core of faith in Jesus Christ.
So where am I going this time? Well, I've decided to go further back than the beginnings of the universe, life, and such. Instead, I have been contemplating the beginning of knowledge itself. Not where knowledge began, but the foundation of my knowledge which results in my faith. So, I'm going to try and develop, with a mathematically rigorous process, the basis of knowledge and all it's derivatives.
First of all, I am only hopeful that I can pursue this study because Proverbs 1:7 tells us "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." No true knowledge can be acquired apart from the LORD. Whether you acknowledge God or not, all things still originate and have their being in Him. For those who do not accept God, they can still only know truth by admitting the eternal character of God in the works of His hand. Namely, the universe obeys constant, unchanging laws and truth can only be known, because it is true and unchanging.
I began this quest by starting with the fact I believe these statements to be true, because I believe the Bible is true. (You could say that the basis for belief in Christ as the creator is based in my belief in the veracity of the Bible.) Next, I believe the Bible is true, because I believe that the account of Christ recorded in the Bible, which I believe because the weight of the evidence for Christ's life, miracles, death and resurrection proves this beyond reasonable doubt. So you see how each belief (each truth) is only true, so long as it is based on another truth. If any of the truths prove false, then all of the dependent truths become suspect. So, as I worked backwards, I began to realize, that there are some fundamental issues of from which I might develop a rational philosophy of knowledge and truth.
Please understand that I undertake this effort, firm in my conviction that faith in the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ will be justified by the rational arguments I plan on using. To each man I say understand the foundation of your faith as far as you are able. If you can only believe because you have been told by someone whom you trust, then rest on that knowledge. If you are able to understand all philosophy and spent years working in that field, then evaluate your knowledge in light of the real and convincing proofs that exist. If you are in between, then pursue your understanding as far as you are able, and then stretch a little further. You will not be excused if you have decided to oppose the LORD in your beliefs, even if you consider your efforts at understanding sincere.
To all, regardless of your worldview, I ask your patience and assistance where my efforts fall short of the goal. Only in so much that this effort be to the glory of God, do I undertake it. So to those who are Christians, believing on Christ for their salvation, I ask you to hold me accountable. To warn me against sin and error and to correct me if I fall. Though God is perfect I am not. God's ways are beyond our understanding and his thoughts are above our thoughts. Therefore, this is not an attempt to prove God, to defend Him or justify his ways. This is only an attempt to show, by rational argument, why trusting God and placing your faith in Jesus Christ is not only reasonable, but the only way to obtain salvation from your sins and inherit eternal life.
NEXT: The core of faith in Jesus Christ.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Get Some Facts Please
"Evolution Gets a Boost: No Cost for Complexity"
I am sure the posts following this particular article are representative of any article on Evolution that gains the attention of the Creationists and Evolutionists communities. What is so terribly upsetting to me is the vitriol on both sides of the issue and the complete lack of references to scientifically valid research on complexity and Intelligent-Design.
First, the majority of research that supports AND stands up to scrutiny is outside of mainstream biology, paleontology and astronomy. The research generally revolves around mathematics (probability) and information theory. Unfortunately, these disciplines are not nearly as vocal, nor as easily demonstrated as most biology and paleontology is. Imagine the response you get when you bring a fossil bone or exotic animal to a class of children. "Ooohs" and "Aahs" abound and the kids all want to see what you have. Now imagine bringing diagrams of computational probability models or the entropy factors of information to the same class. Do you think you would get the same interest?
Second, to all those who post and posture on evolution and unload the tons of emotional baggage that goes with this subject, consider your motives and your own beliefs. If my faith is so ephemeral and ludicrous as you claim, why do I bother you so much that you feel the need to denigrate me and demean my conclusions with insults? Are you truly afraid that the lunatic rantings of a right-wing fringe could ever overcome the well-honed arguments and factually based evidence you present to the rational world? Or, as almost all the people I know who specialize in diagnosing and treating human behaviors (psychologists, social workers, coaches, life-coaches, etc.) would argue, is there something you personally fear about those who oppose your view. (A minor possibility with those who express such anger, is a psychological disorder.)
Now, to my friends on the creationist side of the aisle, your insults and rantings are just as damaging and evidence the same level of fear and anger as our evolutionist counterparts. If you believe in the sovereignty of God, then why do you act with such rancor at the advances of evolutionary science? God will not be mocked and in the end, everyone will know the truth.
Now, some facts:
Entropy
Entropy is an often misunderstood and misused concept. Entropy is a measure of unusable energy in a system, often termed disorder, it has more to do with work than with the arrangement of things. The First Law of Thermodynamics is fairly straight forward and easy to understand, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, only transformed. But we have all seen that no matter how much the price of gas is, we still have to put more in the tank to keep the engine running. Shouldn't we just be able to capture the exhaust and recycle the energy? This is where the Second Law of Thermodynamics enters the field. Once the gasoline has been burned, we have just as much matter (exhaust gases) as we had before the explosion occurred in the engine. However, the arrangement of the materials after the explosion is such that we cannot extract energy from them, whereas we could while the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen were captured in the petroleum molecules. The energy of the overall system hasn't changed, but we can no longer perform work with it. This is the heart of the Second Law. The entropy (measure of unusable energy) in a system cannot decrease. It may remain unchanged or increase.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics has another constraint. It only applies to a closed system. In our car engine model, the closed system consists of the gas tank, the engine and some (hypothetical) exhaust container. You could actually model this situation by running your car inside a closed garage. DON'T TRY THIS AS THE BUILD UP OF NOXIOUS GASES IS VERY, VERY DANGEROUS. As the car ran the gasoline would be continually turned into exhaust gases and the entropy of the garage would increase until it reached a maximum when all of the gasoline had been burned and converted into exhaust gas. However, you can decrease the entropy of the system if you open the garage door and bring in a new can of gasoline for the tank. (Yes, you would also have to ensure adequate oxygen was replenished as well.) But if you did open the door, the system (the garage) is no longer a closed system and the Second Law no longer applies.
The c/e (creationist/evolutionist) argument tends to go something like this. C: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution is not possible, because no system can increase in order over time." E: "Only for closed systems and anyone can see that the Earth is not a closed system, since it is continually receiving energy from the sun."
Both people have vastly oversimplified the issue. Neither addressed the real issues. The Second Law has been extended in fields such as information theory where complexity is actually studied, but it's usage is not as simplistic or well established as in Physics. Additionally, the concept is not entirely the same. Evolution has an issue with information theory in the idea that you cannot increase the amount of useful information in a system without adding something to the system.
The evolutionist's argument is also fallacious, in that, though the earth does continuously receive energy from the sun (and disperses some energy to space), the type of energy is much more relevant that the amount. Heat in and of itself cannot create life, organize molecules, or fuel evolution. What is required is an organizing principal. Some mechanism must exist that uses the available solar energy for useful work (reproduction, movement, etc.). Chlorophyll filled plants form the foundation of energy usage in nearly all of the earth's ecosystems. It is the ability (evolved or designed) to convert solar energy into food that the organism can use that makes life possible. From these organisms, the entire food chain derives it's energy. But you must realize that the organizing principal which makes use of the sun's energy exists independently of the solar energy it is using.
In my next post Information Theory and Evolution.
I am sure the posts following this particular article are representative of any article on Evolution that gains the attention of the Creationists and Evolutionists communities. What is so terribly upsetting to me is the vitriol on both sides of the issue and the complete lack of references to scientifically valid research on complexity and Intelligent-Design.
First, the majority of research that supports AND stands up to scrutiny is outside of mainstream biology, paleontology and astronomy. The research generally revolves around mathematics (probability) and information theory. Unfortunately, these disciplines are not nearly as vocal, nor as easily demonstrated as most biology and paleontology is. Imagine the response you get when you bring a fossil bone or exotic animal to a class of children. "Ooohs" and "Aahs" abound and the kids all want to see what you have. Now imagine bringing diagrams of computational probability models or the entropy factors of information to the same class. Do you think you would get the same interest?
Second, to all those who post and posture on evolution and unload the tons of emotional baggage that goes with this subject, consider your motives and your own beliefs. If my faith is so ephemeral and ludicrous as you claim, why do I bother you so much that you feel the need to denigrate me and demean my conclusions with insults? Are you truly afraid that the lunatic rantings of a right-wing fringe could ever overcome the well-honed arguments and factually based evidence you present to the rational world? Or, as almost all the people I know who specialize in diagnosing and treating human behaviors (psychologists, social workers, coaches, life-coaches, etc.) would argue, is there something you personally fear about those who oppose your view. (A minor possibility with those who express such anger, is a psychological disorder.)
Now, to my friends on the creationist side of the aisle, your insults and rantings are just as damaging and evidence the same level of fear and anger as our evolutionist counterparts. If you believe in the sovereignty of God, then why do you act with such rancor at the advances of evolutionary science? God will not be mocked and in the end, everyone will know the truth.
Now, some facts:
Entropy
Entropy is an often misunderstood and misused concept. Entropy is a measure of unusable energy in a system, often termed disorder, it has more to do with work than with the arrangement of things. The First Law of Thermodynamics is fairly straight forward and easy to understand, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, only transformed. But we have all seen that no matter how much the price of gas is, we still have to put more in the tank to keep the engine running. Shouldn't we just be able to capture the exhaust and recycle the energy? This is where the Second Law of Thermodynamics enters the field. Once the gasoline has been burned, we have just as much matter (exhaust gases) as we had before the explosion occurred in the engine. However, the arrangement of the materials after the explosion is such that we cannot extract energy from them, whereas we could while the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen were captured in the petroleum molecules. The energy of the overall system hasn't changed, but we can no longer perform work with it. This is the heart of the Second Law. The entropy (measure of unusable energy) in a system cannot decrease. It may remain unchanged or increase.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics has another constraint. It only applies to a closed system. In our car engine model, the closed system consists of the gas tank, the engine and some (hypothetical) exhaust container. You could actually model this situation by running your car inside a closed garage. DON'T TRY THIS AS THE BUILD UP OF NOXIOUS GASES IS VERY, VERY DANGEROUS. As the car ran the gasoline would be continually turned into exhaust gases and the entropy of the garage would increase until it reached a maximum when all of the gasoline had been burned and converted into exhaust gas. However, you can decrease the entropy of the system if you open the garage door and bring in a new can of gasoline for the tank. (Yes, you would also have to ensure adequate oxygen was replenished as well.) But if you did open the door, the system (the garage) is no longer a closed system and the Second Law no longer applies.
The c/e (creationist/evolutionist) argument tends to go something like this. C: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution is not possible, because no system can increase in order over time." E: "Only for closed systems and anyone can see that the Earth is not a closed system, since it is continually receiving energy from the sun."
Both people have vastly oversimplified the issue. Neither addressed the real issues. The Second Law has been extended in fields such as information theory where complexity is actually studied, but it's usage is not as simplistic or well established as in Physics. Additionally, the concept is not entirely the same. Evolution has an issue with information theory in the idea that you cannot increase the amount of useful information in a system without adding something to the system.
The evolutionist's argument is also fallacious, in that, though the earth does continuously receive energy from the sun (and disperses some energy to space), the type of energy is much more relevant that the amount. Heat in and of itself cannot create life, organize molecules, or fuel evolution. What is required is an organizing principal. Some mechanism must exist that uses the available solar energy for useful work (reproduction, movement, etc.). Chlorophyll filled plants form the foundation of energy usage in nearly all of the earth's ecosystems. It is the ability (evolved or designed) to convert solar energy into food that the organism can use that makes life possible. From these organisms, the entire food chain derives it's energy. But you must realize that the organizing principal which makes use of the sun's energy exists independently of the solar energy it is using.
In my next post Information Theory and Evolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)