From: gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall)
Subject: Re: Proof of God's Existence
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:49:53 GMT

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes a number
of things.  As far as I can see, he doesn't really have grasped
the force of what I was saying.  I will attempt to make myself
a little clearer.

*In article <1992Sep8.044743.1221@cltr.uq.OZ.AU> gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg  
*Restall) writes:
*> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
*> 
*> *Zorn's lemma is more or less an axiom of set theory. It seems 
*> *a bit pointless to take an axiom of set theory, and
*> *simply say this axiom applies to causality...
*> 
*> Zorn's lemma applies to sets.  If it's true, it must 
*> apply to sets of causes.  It's interesting to know that 
*> if it is true, and if a couple of other somewhat plausible
*> conditions hold, then there is a first cause.  You may not
*> be so impressed by such a result, but I think it's neat.
*
*I'll reiterate: I wouldn't deign to call it a ''result''. 
*-Zorn's lemma is an *axiom* for partially ordered sets. 
*-Its a mere assumption about the properties of such sets.
*-Its a _first principle_ about such sets!
*
*To say events ordered by causality is a partially ordered set, 
*with one or two properties, and by the _axioms_ of such things, 
*there is a first event, is hardly much of a result, is it?

Please reread my post a little more carefully.
Take a few deep breaths.  Let it sink in.

Right.  Now, recall: what was the result I was
mentioning?  It was this:

	If Zorn's lemma holds, and a few other conditions
	obtain in regard to causation, *then* there is a
	first cause.

It is a conditional.  In other words, it tells us
what follows from what.  You may not think it's 
much of a result.  Fine, you don't have to be 
impressed.  It's a mathematical or logical result
like heaps of others in the field.  

*There is little difference between this and simply postulating
*the is a first event, as far as I can see, since all his
*'argument' is wrapped up in his initial claim that the set
*of events is a thing to which Zorn applies.

No?  I think that the conditional

	If there is a first cause, then there is a first cause

is *much* less informative and interesting than the
one that is actually proved.  Let me repeat.  Bob
wasn't out to prove that there is a first cause.
But rather, that the existence of a first cause
*follows from* a number of other interesting 
claims.  (Which may be true, or may be false).

*> *The trick is, I don't go of the metaphysical 
*> *deep end trying to irrefutably justify my claim. I just 
*> *say: look at the historical evidence.> A number of points:
*> 
*> 1.  No-one was asking you to `irrefutably' justify
*> your claim.  
*> Where we were taking you to task is to realise that
*> your claim is fudgy, and that any attempt to justify
*> it means taking a philosophical stance.
*
*No, dude. I'm saying look at the historical record and see how
*well a purely philosophical, platonic approach to understaning
*nature has worked. Not Too Well. Why is an appeal to the historical
*record a philosophical claim?

Because you are making assumptions about the
nature of the `philosophical, platonic approach'
that shape the way you view the historical 
evidence.  These assumptions are a part of a
philosophical stance that you take.  I think
they are wrong.  Bob's paper is not in the 
rationalist/platonic tradition.  Rather, 
it belongs to the tradition of the cartesian
mathematisation of nature --- the tradition
that brings us modern physics.  You use 
mathematical means to measure things in the
physical world.  Mathematical facts have
implications about the real world.  This
one is that if Zorn's lemma holds for 
causation, then there is a first cause.

It's hard to criticise his approach without
cutting the ground away beneath your feet.

*What I have against it is this: is a lot of mathematical
*smoke and mirrors to obscure the simple claim that there
*is a first cause. He's trying to lend legitimacy to this 
*age old philosophical riddle by simply sucking in some
*fancy mathematical things like set theory and Zorn's lemma.
*It really contributes nothing to our understaning, since
*he just makes a bunch of standard claims about causality, and
*then using an *axiom* to achieve the desired conclusion 
*(the one that has allays been achieved by philosophers anyway). 
*There is no content to this argument. Its all axioms whose
*''truth'' cannot be known.

Firstly, refrain from trying to guess what Bob had
in mind when writing the paper.  If you want to
know what he thinks of it, ask him.  He's currently 
at the Automated Reasoning Project, at the Australian
National University, GPO Box 4, Canberra 2601, 
Australia.  

Now, recall what I said before.  The informative
result is that Zorn's lemma gives the existence 
of a first cause.  This is *much* more interesting
than the result that a first cause gives the existence
of a first cause.  It's a mathematical result.  It
contributes to our understanding.  It has content.
(Just like lots of other mathematical results which
help us in our understanding of the world, and which
follow from *axioms* in exactly the same way.  What's
the difference with this one?)

If you don't want to read past the manner in which 
the paper is presented (with the provocative title, 
and the humour contained within) to see the 
content of the arguments, then, that's your own 
business.  Don't assume it's not there, just 
because he's a `philosopher'.  

Please, if you are going to continue to respond
to this thread, get a copy of the article, and
read it, and *then* tell me what you think Bob
is trying to do.  Post as many of your criticisms
as you like.  But do it on the basis of what you've
read, and not on the basis of your preconceptions
of what every philosopher does.

Have a day,

Greg



--
------------------+------------------------------------------------
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