From: gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Proof of God's Existence
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:59:47 GMT
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.

ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes an interesting,
provocative reply to one of Barry Merriman's comments, 
which goes like this:

*>Why can't
*>philosophers understand this simple proposition: 
*>
*>YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE THROUGH PURE  
*>CONTEMPLATION.

[Lots of interesting stuff deleted.]

*It is nevertheless hard to specify what "a priori" and "vacuous" mean.
*Philosophers have tried, though apparently not with complete success,
*to explain both concepts in such a way that the thesis holds true. I
*think they (collectively) understand the proposition you've made as
*well as you or I do. If you think that there is a clear way to explain
*these terms, it certainly would be interesting (and relevant to the
*group) to describe it to us.

As a logician with both mathematical and philosophical 
tendencies, I have watched this debate with interest, 
and with the odd grimace at the howlers that have been
let fly.  

Firstly, I don't think many have read Bob Meyer's paper
in the right light.  As far as I can see, it contains
some interesting results that show that under certain 
conditions, Zorn's lemma grants us the existence of a 
First Cause.  Now *of course* these conditions are not
obviously true.  Of course this doesn't count as an 
a priori proof of the existence of a First Cause, if
some other vital premises are not known a priori.  And
they aren't (at least by me). However, it is an 
interesting piece of work nonetheless.  Like a great
deal of analytic philosophy, it helps us get a handle
on what follows from what.  This is nontrivial stuff.
As a bonus, it's quite funny, as Bob's papers tend 
to be.  

Secondly, it seems odd that Barry Merriman doesn't 
understand that in making claims such as the capitalised
one given above (to the effect that you can't prove
anything about the physical universe through pure 
contemplation) he is going perilously close to *doing*
philosophy.  At least, that is what he would be doing
if he went so far as to attempt to justify his claim.

Keith Ramsay has shown that there are perilous ambiguities
in the terms `about' and `pure contemplation' in the 
claim that we have presented to us.  Another is hidden
in the term `through'.  What on earth could this mean?
Here's a proof of a substantive fact about the physical
universe.  It has two premises.

	I wonder if any wondering happens 
	in the physical universe.

	I am in the physical universe.
	---------------------------------
	Wondering happens in the physical 
	universe.

Now, I think I can `purely contemplate' the above proof,
and the conclusion tells us something substantial about
the physical universe.  Of course, premise two might
fail, but then we can at least deduce the conditional:
`If I'm in the physical universe, then wondering happens
in the physical universe' which, as far as I can see, 
is still a substantive claim about the way the physical
universe is.  So, you have to say how this isn't achieved
`through pure contemplation'.  The way to do this, I
suppose, is to argue that premise 1 cannot be given 
`through pure contemplation'.  However, that's just
what wondering is.  So, because of *the fact* that there
is pure contemplation going on, you have proved something
interesting about the physical universe.  

Thirdly, if you don't think that philosophy is relevant
to physics, please don't criticise any arguments on
the grounds that they are not valid, for that's doing
philosophy too.  Don't avail yourself of any of the 
tools of logic, for these are also the fruit of 
philosophy.  I think philosophy is more pervasive
than you imagine.

Best wishes,

Greg Restall


--
------------------+------------------------------------------------
Greg Restall      | Philosophy Department, University of Queensland
gar@cltr.uq.oz.au | Queensland, 4072  Australia.
------------------+------------------------------------------------
Redemption rips through the surface of time in the cry of a tiny babe.
        - Bruce Cockburn, from the album "Nothing but a Burning Light"
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech