Comments on: Markets in everything

By: David

David — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:09:05 +0000

I’ll venture to say this about Gödel and the possibility of time travel: The view that Gödel’s work somehow straightforwardly proves that time travel is possible in this world, as opposed to some really odd possible world, is KOOKY.

By: David

David — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:30:23 +0000

And a brief review of Yourgrau’s book by Steven Weinberg can be found here: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sw9/Yourgrau.pdf

By: David

David — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:57:54 +0000

On the vexed question of the possibility of time travel and Gödel, there’s a interesting 1999 book on the matter by Palle Yourgrau: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0812694082/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-9761033-0187254#reader-link

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:12:18 +0000

Brian Weatherson writes: “Whatever Intelligent Design is, it’s incompatible with the evolution of new species,” Says who? There are prominent ID’ers who are on record as believing in the evolution of new species.

By: David

David — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:59:01 +0000

Well, I highlighted two (telepathy, ESP) of the four things to indicate that I thought they, in particular, were “kooky” views. Doesn’t my point about not assuming that people who hold one or two “kooky” views are themselves kooks or fools still hold? Why do you persist in thinking that I’m somehow defending Intelligent Design itself? I’m not. How many times do I have to say it?

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:34:14 +0000

If you think the possibility of time travel is kookier than Intelligent Design, we’ve got very different views on the state of current science. G{o”}del’s work showing that there were solutions to GR with closed timelike curves was a great mathematical achievement, and it has spurred a lot of serious work on whether time travel is possible in anything like our world. The majority of physicists are against, but there’s plenty of well-respected physicists who are in favour, and plenty more who are agnostic. (Or who think that time travel is possible in principle but technologically infeasible, etc. There’s plenty of options on the table here.) Intelligent Design doesn’t just mean God set the whole thing running and Darwinian forces did the rest. (Presumably in accord with God’s plan – just like everything else.) Lots of people believe that, and it’s hardly a kooky view. Indeed, that’s what I’ve always taken the Catholic position to be. Whatever Intelligent Design is, it’s incompatible with the evolution of new species, so when the Pope says that evolution is how God’s plan unfolds, he’s taking a position that’s inconsistent with Intelligent Design. That seems to me like taking a position against it.

By: David

David — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:22:17 +0000

Here are links to two sources where 20th century Popes comment on Evolution: John Paul II’s 1996 Address: http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html and Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:58:27 +0000

Brian Weatherson writes: “There’s a bunch of references to various statements by popes and other Catholic spokespeople here” But nothing that appears to come close to being an official Catholic position against Intelligent Design.

By: David

David — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:50:08 +0000

According to one description of a biography of the man, Kurt Gödel believed in a few things far kookier than Intelligent Design: “Godel believed in an afterlife, telepathy, ESP and the possibility of time travel.” (my emphasis) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568810253/qid=1082637893/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9761033-0187254?v=glance&s=books

By: David

David — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:32:36 +0000

I’ve already conceded the point you repeat, Brian. Bill is entirely within his rights in refusing to work with someone on a Intelligent Design Project. I think the part that worries me is the assumption that anyone who espouses a “kooky” theory is, thereby, a kook or a fool, and somehow damaged goods. The late David Lewis held a “kooky” theory about possible worlds, prompting all those incredulous stares. Was he a kook? The academic community surely didn’t consider him such, despite this one odd view. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/modal.realism.html

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:11:01 +0000

Any evidence that G{o”}del believed in Intelligent Design? Indeed, any evidence that he believed in anything like Christian theory? I don’t know why David keeps equating belief in some kind of God or other with Intelligent Design, which is a really kooky theory. Lots and lots of theists don’t believe it, without thereby holding any contradictory views. I didn’t see Bill’s statement as attacking religious belief at all – just attacking belief in an awful would-be scientific theory. There’s a bunch of references to various statements by popes and other Catholic spokespeople here, though the guy writing this clearly doesn’t like the Catholic position.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:49:17 +0000

LOL. Yeah, the dead never return my calls either. A more recent philosophical example of fruitful collaboration between some extremely different mindsets—the correspondence between W.V.O. Quine and P.T. Geach, which Quine quite appreciated. I couldn’t imagine a more unlikely pairing—Geach the conservative Roman Catholic and Quine the decidedly unreligious man. See “Selected Correspondence with Geach; W.V.O. Quine” in the volume Peter Geach: Philosophical Encounters: http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-7923-0823-9

By: Bill Tozier

Bill Tozier — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:11:26 +0000

I agree, David. Caution and skepticism about our own prejudices is a good thing. For instance, somebody might have prejudiciously assumed Newton and Cantor were dead, as well. Poor fellows have very few people working with them these days as a result. “[beep] (—king answering machine again) Helloo? … Isaac?…. Are you there? …. If you’re there, please pick up….. Ummm, I was wondering, if you have a chance, could I get your feedback, please, on that draft I sent you…..? Hello….? All right then…. Suppose you’re busy with the end of term and all……. Umm Call me! Looking forward to hearing from you! ….. (bloody great gi—[click]” Now that would be silly, eh? No reason to be a pariah.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:09:38 +0000

Well and good, Bill. I’m just suggesting that we be cautious about exactly who’s a fool and a kook, and thus, not worth collaborating with.

By: Bill Tozier

Bill Tozier — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:50:54 +0000

Alas for diversity, sellers on eBay are allowed to set their terms of sale as they see fit. Many prohibit bids from users outside the US, or those from people with too little or too much negative feedback. I’m not a hyper-aggressive anti-theist. I despise fools, and powerful fools most of all.