Article 11 of 250

Subject:      Re: Fundamentals
From:         Sam Dodsworth <sam@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Date:         1997/02/19
Message-Id:   <$+HJzHAi2yCzEwAC@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk
References:   <01bc1d1f$5b8a1920$LocalHost@m-586> <5eat2t$h7f@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Organization: Annexia Free Press
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   alt.books.cs-Lewis



In article <01bc1e66$530eaf20$LocalHost@#metanoi1>, Russel Trojan
<metanoi1@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>Granted that reasonable and true are not the same, and I apologize for my
>amateur mistake of using them in synonymously.  At this point I also
>suspect that you are of the mind that truth cannot not be fully proved.
>This being due to agreement upon value and validity of evidence and other
>such things.  Based upon this, I would have to assert that the
>supernaturalist position is more reasonable than the naturalist position,
>that is to say that it conforms better to observed operation of nature and
>leaves fewer questions unanswered or unanswerable.
>
        I'd agree with you, subject to the fact that I think that there
are many Supernaturalist positions, of which Lewis' is only one example,
and that the scientific worldview is in fact Supernaturalist in the
terms of Lewis' definition. I've elaborated on these views in an earlier
series of posts. If you're interested the email me and I'll send you
what I've got, but you may need to fill in the gaps from Dejanews.

>>         A rule can be predictable and identifiable without being
>> deterministic. What if we have a law that says "there are only two
>> possible outcomes in this situation, and there is an equal chance that
>> either will occur"? Or (and this is something that I think Lewis missed)
>> a law (like the Conservation of Energy) that doesn't define a cause-and-
>> effect relationship?
>> 
>
>I'm not sure that I'm convinced that we can have a law that says there is
>more than one effect from one cause, I'd have to have an example before I
>could consider the possibilities. 

        Depends what you mean by more than one effect. Apply a match to
a pile of gunpowder. The heat begins a chemical reaction that produces
heat, light, various gasses, and a cloud of smoke particles. One effect
or four? And why bring up a cause with multiple effects when what I was
discussing was a cause that can produce one of several effects,
unpredictably?

>The same would have to be said about a
>law that does not define a cause and effect relationship, seeing that I am
>totally ignorant of the law of Conservation of Energy. If you could
>describe this law in a non-techical manner, I would appreciate it.
>
        Put simply, the law of the Conservation of Energy states that,
whatever you do, you can't create energy from nothing or destroy it in a
way that doesn't in fact just send it somewhere else. (Post-Einstein, of
course, we have to add that matter is just another form of energy and
vice-versa.) This law applies to cause-and-effect relationships, but it
doesn't define one in itself - it just limits the options. Nor is it
easy to reduce it to "if A then B", as Lewis claims in "Miracles" can be
done to all scientific laws. ("If energy seems to be coming from nowhere
then it hasn't" is my closest approach, but although it fits the letter
of Lewis' requirements it's not a cause-and-effect relationship, and
Lewis was talking about cause-and-effect.)

Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk)
"I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. 
 Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is
 desperately needed."
                        -J.G. Ballard