From: wyang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William D Yang)
Subject: Re: Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:56:50 GMT

> In article <mumble>, Michael Schiffer writes:

>> Consider a simple universe: a pinball machine.  From observations of the
>> universe beneath the glass, one might be able to develop a
>> sophisticated science of mechanics.  But while one could develop some
>> hypotheses as to when the flippers would flip, it would be impossible
>> to reduce it to a science.  Too many factors intervene.  (We presume
>> that the player is unknowable except in his manifestations as flipper
>> movements; for this thought experiment we are limited only to the
>> world of bumpers, lights, balls, flippers, etc. which exist within the
>> limits of the pinball playfield.)  The vast majority of the balls' motions 
>> is perfectly lawful (and almost perfectly Newtonian)-- but every so often
>> an unpredictable factor is introduced into it, at intervals which are
>> not known to the inhabitants (a ball can pass a flipper with no
>> action, or a player could nervously work the flipper when no ball is
>> nearby).  Is science possible within the pinball universe?"

"Are you trying to tell me that we're living in a giant pinball
machine?  If so, I guess I just hit 'tilt!'..."  :) 

Seriously, though, I think this analogy has a lot of explanatory
value.  I'm going to elaborate on it a little, however, because I need
to blow off some steam (I've been trying to program in Modula-2 for a
Mac, under an emulation mode on a Sunstation.  It's /REALLY/
annoying).  Thus.. here goes...

In article <1e88haINN5jv@gap.caltech.edu> lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

> I thought I'd covered this case when I said that the gods of many other
> religions, who weren't omnipotent and had to obey at least SOME rules, didn't
> necessarily conflict with science.  You see, by constraining the god to act
> only via the flippers, you've removed his omnipotence.  

Let's explore the idea of omnipotence for just a moment.  Let's
attribute this thing, omnipotence (only for the sake of argument,
mind) to a creature I'll call Fred.  Now that Fred is omnipotent, can
Fred make a round circle, or can he take a vacation in the holes on a
mercadur projection map?
 
Clearly, Fred can redefine the concepts in question... but can he
change the EXISTING concepts without redefinition?
 
(If you say yes, then you're a rational relativist; by accepting that
hypothesis you've doomed yourself, as a logical consequence of that
claim is that we're not communicating right now (qv: Wittgenstein and
Quine's arguments about communication).  I am willing to accept, and
to grant out of hand, that there exists no creature, being, existence,
or actuality beyond conception with that power, and could possibly be
swayed to believe that it's not even conceptually possible with proper
argument).
 
It seems ludicrous to think that omnipotence really means "the power
to do anything" -- a more reasonable interpretation of omnipotence is
to make the claim that omnipotence is the power to do that which is
do-able.  This leaves some constraints... but not as many as one might
want to believe... and it keeps our apparent communication intact ;).
Keep that in mind.  "Common" or "Popular" Christianity interprets the
words of the Bible in a particular way.  As I understand the teachings
of the Catholic Church, it's not common to all Christian religions.

Back to the Pinball Universe for a moment.  Let's give Fred a few
extra capacities, which would maintain his "omnipotence" (as I've
defined it).  Let's give our Fred an electro-magnet with a variable
strength based on a very powerful battery and a power regulator, and
the capacity to gently shake the game without making the tilt light go
off.
 
Now, we've got some serious "power" in this Fred.  He can, with proper
thought and work, do just about anything in that pinball machine he so
desires.  And the beings in the Pinball Universe might be able to work
out the physics of what's going on, but have no real consistency as
the magnet might screw things up!  Not only don't they know WHEN their
laws might fail, they won't know WHAT might happen.  They won't even
be able to assign probabilities, as they don't know what kind of
interaction, or when said interaction might happen.
 
	-Bill, looking for a fun philosophical argument.
 
--
William D. Yang         wyang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu         Yang.25@osu.edu
It's my opinion, but if you really want it, you can have it for a nominal fee.
ObPhilosophy:  One's mind should always reach fnorder than one's overbite.
"It's a conspiracy!  Quick... STEP ON IT!"  -Me, a while ago.
Newsgroups: alt.callahans