🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bu13pL.C83@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu  
(David Chalmers) writes:

> That seems about right to me.  Here's what the paper has to say:
> 
>   So what is being claimed here, at least, is a sound argument to a
>   true conclusion.  It is only reasonable to add the usual disclaimers.
>   All that the argument seeks to establish is that there is a First
>   Cause. 

The paper in no way establishes there is a first cause. Why can't
philosophers understand this simple proposition: 

YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE THROUGH PURE  
CONTEMPLATION.

The best you can do is make predictions, or show that within some 
mathematical theory a certain thing is predicted. 

In this case, all the author did was whip out zorns lemma and 
claim that causal chains satisfy it. Thats real physical.


Also, given that there are good physical theories that lack first 
causes (e.g. GR + big bang, where time goes back indefinitely without a
first time), it is particularly ridiculous for one to claim there
must be a first cause. (Basically the author is claiming that 
his inept wielding of Zorns lemma and his physical predjudices 
provide a superior theory of causality than GR + big bang. Right.)

Finally, I seriously doubt the need of Zorns lemma to establish 
a first cause. It looks to me like either the guy like to pound
nails with a sledge hammer, or he's a philosopher trying to 
impress people with his mathematical (lack of, in fact) prowess.

All in all, an excellent example of my complaint: philosophers 
who try (and fail) to apply the techniques of science and mathematics to
establish 'deep' philosophical truths. Do they ever send phil
papers to real scientists to referee?



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)