Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!datcon!ee
From: ee@datcon.co.uk (Eddie Edwards)
Subject: Re: Etheric spiritual forces, are there...?
Message-ID: <1994Sep21.115209.14009@datcon.co.uk>
Organization: Data Connection Limited
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <burt.779847760@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 11:52:09 GMT
Lines: 49

Burt Voorhees (burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca) wrote:

: On the other hand, since there is no rational means of coming to a
: decision either way as to the existence of "spiritual forces" (I think
: this has been well established in philosophy for a couple of thousand
: years or so) the rational position can only be that of Pyrro (spelling?)
: namely, _suspension of judgement_

Sadly, Godel's Theorem prevents this from being a rational position, because
there are truths which can never be proven.  

Pyrro: I will not accept either hypothesis without proof.

Godel: But it's possible that neither hypothesis can ever be proven. I can only
       go on 'weight of evidence', which is necessarily a subjective decision.
       Therefore, I shall (on the evidence of mine own eyes) work on the
       principle that there is an organizational force at work in nature which
       is beyond man's current comprehension.  I shall ignore the jibes of my
       fellow scientists because their position is no stronger than mine.

My favourite quote on this is from Godel-Escher-Bach, (I forget the author) who
states that:

Godel's theorem implies that 'truth' is a stronger concept than 'provability'.

So, in order to break out of Pyrro's deadlock, we must use the subjective
concept of 'weight of evidence' in order to make a decision.  This decision
will inevitably be heaviliy based on personal experience (including parental
upbringing).  

Note that I am probably using the word evidence in a looser way than many of
you would like, because in order to break out of the deadlock we must also
lower our standards of what constitutes 'acceptable evidence'.

The really interesting question, though, is WHY is the universe built in such
a way that we cannot have what we want - completeness and consistency.

Who should I ask this question to?  The scientists or the spritiualists?

I can see some recursion just around the corner ...

--
Eddie xxx

===========================================================================
Official Archimedes convertor of :   POWERSLAVE SOFTWARE BULLETIN .SIG    :
Wolfenstein 3D and proud of it!! : WOLFENSTEIN 3D RELEASE DATE : 28/10/94 :
=================================:   SPECIAL ACORN WORLD SHOW PRICE !!!   :
         ee@datcon.co.uk          ==========================================
