View Single Post
Dec6-05, 05:33 PM
P: 14
Quote Quote by droog
1)According to Paul Davies, most physicists who work on fundamental physics believe the laws of physics have some independent existence to the universe
2)The laws of physics are propositions if they exist independently to the universe
3)Propositions are semantic-based structures
4)We are justified in believing that the laws of physics are propositions and are semantic structures(from 1, 2, 3)
5)Semantic structures only have existence if they are interpreted and comprehended by an interpreter
6)Propositions require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3, 5)
7)We are justified in believing that the laws of physics require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3,6)
8)An interpreter exists independent of the proposition and the fictional or non-fictional world(s) that the proposition refers to (defined as having "implicit freedom")
9)An interpreter of a proposition is restricted by rules of interpretation which are separate from the proposition itself (i.e., defined as not having "explicit freedom")
10)An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being (God) is defined as having implicit freedom with respect to the propositions of the universe
11)The interpreter of the laws is God (from 4, 8, 9, 10)
We are justified in believing that God is the cause of the laws and the universe(s) that results from the laws (from 7,11).
Where can this logic be faulted? (it's not mine BTW!)

1) is unprovable speculation. All physical (physics) laws are inherently linked to some form of physical expression (universe) otherwise it is ony philosophy. Therefore, any conclusion regarding an 'independent existence" is speculative and philosophical.
2) is impossible to prove and must be relegated to philosophy
3) TRUE 'semantic' is (means) related to 'meaning' and changes in 'meaning'
4) false, as stated, because it precludes undiscovered 'laws of physics'.
also, a proposition can be either true or false. The evolution seems to be from proposition to law.
5) False - comprehension is not a requirement for the existence of a semantic structure.
6) False - because of the presence of both (interpretation and comprehension) conditions precedent. Comprehension is unnecessary.
Once I awakened from a dream with an equation in my mind. ( Pi divided by Pi x .Pi ) This is clearly a 'semantic structure' not yet comprehended .
7) false - We also discover what exists. Relativity was relativity 1,000,000 years ago even though it was not as yet formed into a proposition.
8) true UNLESS contemplating 'self', where 'self' is a semantic structure.
9) false until 'restricted' is removed.
10) speculation. plus contradicts #9. As stated #10 is an untested proposition which may not be comprehended. Also, is true only if #10 is one of the laws of the universe. God, to avoid chaos, may voluntarily abide by propositions. Otherwise, the propositions are temporary propositions and may not lead to laws.
11) speculation. God may be the 'lawgiver' (see, Old Testament) but not necessarily the interpretator.
final un-numbered conclusion is False, as stated. Because it presumes that God created the laws and propositions when in #11 God is defined as the interpretator unless #11 is true.
A truer statement may be that God,because of omnipotentce,chooses to not permanently change any existing laws but it does NOT imply that God created the laws. An earlier 'God' may have created the laws.
Also, 'THE" interpretor implies exclusivity. What about "most physicists" from your opening statement?

However, if you state that God is the 'uncaused cause' of everything, then I whole-heartedly agree!