Philosophical vs Methodological Naturalism

[alexey]

Yes, there are differences, but there are more similarities than many people think and want to admit.

I care about the evidence, and evidence for 2nd law to thermodynamics is very different from evidence for god.

Peter's position:

The system appears to be highly natural, but I'm a little dubious due to my inability to actually measure how natural it is. Due to that, I would not argue that it is silly for somebody to believe they have had an experience that is contradictory to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You are focusing on the general "system" without explicitely addressing quality of the evidence for a specific observation.

This is where Alexey says:

(evidence for 2LT) => DEFINITELY => (2LT is highly reliable)

And Peter says:

(evidence for 2LT) => MAYBE => (2LT is highly reliable)

alexey's position:

The system will be the same tomorrow as it is today, indicating that it is natural, even though I can offer no metric in support of that.

I dispute this assertion.

This is where Alexey still says:

(2LT is highly reliable) => MAYBE => (universe is naturalistic)

But Peter says:

(2LT is highly reliable) => DEFINITELY => (universe is naturalistic)

I am going to call people silly that think they might have had an experience that calls into question the reliability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics despite my inability to clearly articulate a measure of how reliable it is.

Here is the deal Peter. Based on knowledge that I have, I expect the 2nd law of thermodynamics to hold up every time. And I think so will you. So... What experience calls into question reliability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Do you question its reliability? Have you had the experience? What are you talking about?

[PeterMP]

I care about the evidence, and evidence for 2nd law to thermodynamics is very different from evidence for god.

You are focusing on the general "system" without explicitely addressing quality of the evidence for a specific observation.

At the very bottom, the evidence supporting the 2nd law of thermodynamics (as a law and in the context that it will be true in the future, which is what this conversation is really about) is not any better than that supporting that the system is natural.

If the system is not natural, then the 2nd law can not be true.

There is some probability that the system is not natural (let's say X).

There is some probability that the system is natural, but the 2nd law is wrong or at least not completely correct (think of something happening to it like Newton's laws) (let's say this value is Y).

In this context, it doesn't make sense to talk about negative probabilities (they should be bounded by at least 0 and 1).

The probability that the 2nd law is wrong is X+Y, but when you say that I should only consider the evidence for the 2nd law and not the whole system, you are saying that I should ignore X.

That doesn't make sense.

 

This is where Alexey says:

(evidence for 2LT) => DEFINITELY => (2LT is highly reliable)

And Peter says:

(evidence for 2LT) => MAYBE => (2LT is highly reliable)

I dispute this assertion.

This is where Alexey still says:

(2LT is highly reliable) => MAYBE => (universe is naturalistic)

But Peter says:

(2LT is highly reliable) => DEFINITELY => (universe is naturalistic)

In the context the system is not natural, why would you expect the 2nd law of thermodynamics is highly reliable?

You want to say that you can act like it is true, without saying it is true.

That just brings you back to s0crates point about peformance contradiction.

Yes, you can say that it is true, but you can't logically explain it.

If you don't believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true, why is this argument so important to you?

How can the 2nd law of thermodynamics be true, but the system not be natural?

 

Here is the deal Peter. Based on knowledge that I have, I expect the 2nd law of thermodynamics to hold up every time. And I think so will you. So... What experience calls into question reliability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Do you question its reliability? Have you had the experience? What are you talking about?

I personally haven't had an experience that I would tie strongly to the 2nd law.

But the observations of people studying cold fusion would suggest a fundamental flaw in our understanding of basic physics and certainly one of a handful of possible things there would be the 2nd law.

The others would also be things that you would call highly reliable (the 1st law, the 2nd law, gravity, the weak nuclear force, and/or the strong nuclear force).

And let's be realistic, you don't want to end your argument with the 2nd law. You want to extend it to all of the things above and more. You want to say that somebody that questions any of our basic understanding of physics based on their experience is silly.

But you don't really want to assert that our basic understanding of physics must be right.

That's a performance contradiction.

[alexey]

The probability that the 2nd law is wrong is X+Y, but when you say that I should only consider the evidence for the 2nd law and not the whole system, you are saying that I should ignore X.

That doesn't make sense.

It does make sense. Regardless of the whole system, observation of the thing happening is evidence that the thing happens. Think about it.

[PeterMP]

It does make sense. Regardless of the whole system, observation of the thing happening is evidence that the thing happens. Think about it.

 

If the 2nd law of thermodynamics happens (

 

(as a law and in the context that it will be true in the future, which is what this conversation is really about)

 

), then by definition the system is natural.

 

Therefore anything that applies to a natural system applies to this system.

 

And evidence that the system is not only natural is a problem for that argument.

 

Now, I can read your statement another way that I think would be true:

 

"The thing happening is evidence that the thing can happen."

 

But you don't really want to argue that the 2nd law CAN happen.

 

You want to argue that the 2nd law (or something very very closely approximating it) DOES happen.

 

And that depends on the nature of the whole system.

[alexey]

If the 2nd law of thermodynamics happens

(as a law and in the context that it will be true in the future, which is what this conversation is really about) 

 

, then by definition the system is natural.

That is correct, as long as things are defined this way:

1) "2nd law of thermodynamics happens" is necessarily a "natural law"

2) "natural law" can only exist if the system itself is natural.

Can these be disputed?

[alexey]

Peter,

Our disagreement may stem from differences between absolutist thinking and purpose-driven thinking,

Y happened X times. What will happen X+1 time?

Absolutist thinking is simple - there is no way of knowing. We seem to agree on this.

Purpose-driven thinking says, what is the context? How urgent is the answer? What are our other options? What are the benefits of getting it right? What are the costs of getting it wrong?