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: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:47:43 GMT

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, and so there
*is a first cause. Why not just postulate a first cause, 
*and dispense with the philosophical prestidigitation?

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.
*Of course* I don't take it as proving that the universe
has a cause, a priori.  No one in their right mind would 
take it as that.  However, it does prove a priori that if
the universe satisfies particular conditions, then it
has a first cause.  

*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. How many cases do
*we have where pure contemplation (without experimental input)
*have told us interesting things about physics. None. 
*Thus, I conclude that ~1000 years of attempts have not
*produced any successes, and that is the extent to which 
*my claim is justified. Pretty compelling to me---at least
*I'm not gonna spend my time on it, when another route
*with a great success record (science) is available.

A number of points:

1.  No-one was asking you to `irrefutably' justify
your claim.  We were just saying: give us some reasons,
and define your terms.  For one who takes it that 
philosophers are into meaningless waffle, and that this
is a bad thing, this request is not unjustified.  Now,
you do give us a sketch of a historical argument, to
the effect that pure contemplation (without experimental
input) doesn't do much.  Fine.  I almose agree.  However, 
no one I know takes it that this is what Bob Meyer was 
doing in his paper: except you.

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.

2.  Bob's paper *isn't* pure contemplation without 
experimental input.  Some kind of experience was
necessary for Bob to have a concept of causation, 
and for him to see that the assumptions he made
about it were halfway plausible.  It's interesting
to see that particular intuitions have such consequences.

3.  This methodology --- get some sensible looking
claims, and bash out their consequences through purely
conceptual means --- is what a lot of theoretical physicists
do, according to what I've seen.  Of course, the `sensible
looking' claims delivered up by your pet scientific theory,
and then you weigh up the consequences according to what
your pet scientific theory dictates as an appropriate 
experiment, but this is not significantly different.  
People use conceptual machinery to discover what follows
from what.  This is called *logic*.  It's significant
stuff, and we do it all the time.

4.  The conclusion of Bob's argument --- that there is a 
first cause --- looks like a rather difficult thing to
test by way of experiment.  What Bob does is show that its
existence is equivalent to the axiom of choice (for sets
of causes) under certain plausible conditions.  What I 
can't see for the life of me is what you could have against
such an argument.  It's just saying that what we're after
(whether or not there is a first cause) is a consequence
of some other things.  Well, now we have a better idea
of one way the universe could be, if it has a first
cause.  

Bob is showing what follows from what.  That's his 
job.  He's a logician.  (And a damn fine one, I must
say.  If you're going to criticise what's going on,
get a hold of some of his work.  Look him up in
either Math. Reviews, or The Philosophers' Index, or 
the indices to the JSL or the JPL, or NDJFL, etc...)

If you have anything against his practices as
a logician, it's up to you.  Just remember that
you're doing logic (a branch of `pure contemplation')
when you try to see what follows from what, and that
this is a pretty important skill to have.

Yours inferentially,

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"