noguru
Well-known member
Dinner on me.
--Dave
I have to say Dave, I do like some of your ideas, as inaccurate as they seem to me.
Dinner on me.
--Dave
Dear Dave,
I've been to Washington Square Park. Wanted to speak there, but was too self-conscious. Chicken is the word, I guess. I still was just not ready to speak publicly. I've gotten better at it though. I worked at ABC-TV when I lived on Manhattan and Staten Island, in the Accounting Dept. They didn't pay very well.
Much obliged for your help here, to say the very least.
May God Touch Your Forehead With His Mark (He Already Has),
Michael
I have to say Dave, I do like some of your ideas, as inaccurate as they seem to me.
Let's just take one inaccuracy you see and let me try to defend my view.
--Dave
Let's start with you most foundational philosophical assumption, that the universe cannot be both eternal and also be subjected to infinite regress. You keep claiming the two ideas are mutually exclusive, but none of us can know that. You then make things even more absurd by trying to add a "supernatural element" to resolve you imagined problem. This does nothing to solve the problem, if it is even truly there. It is just another "God of the gaps" argument. I find such arguments to be the result of lazy thinking.
So, lets look at infinite regress. The premise of infinite regress is there exists a cause for everything that moves or changes, nothing moves itself.
...
The problem is we have to account for something that is not the result of cause and effect or nothing gets started.
Is the answer an unmoved eternal something or a free eternal something, something that moves itself?
--Dave
So, lets look at infinite regress. The premise of infinite regress is there exists a cause for everything that moves or changes, nothing moves itself.
Aristotle said even the mind is moved by the object of it's thought. He then proposed the "Unmoved Mover" as the logical beginning point for the cause of change and movement.
In the theory of evolution, we work our way back to the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe. We have to account for the first cell, from which all living things gradually "progress". We have to account for the first particle, atom, or string from which all others gradually "progress" through cause and effect.
The problem is we have to account for something that is not the result of cause and effect or nothing gets started.
Is the answer an unmoved eternal something or a free eternal something, something that moves itself?
--Dave
So, lets look at infinite regress. The premise of infinite regress is there exists a cause for everything that moves or changes, nothing moves itself.
Aristotle said even the mind is moved by the object of it's thought. He then proposed the "Unmoved Mover" as the logical beginning point for the cause of change and movement.
In the theory of evolution, we work our way back to the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe. We have to account for the first cell, from which all living things gradually "progress". We have to account for the first particle, atom, or string from which all others gradually "progress" through cause and effect.
The problem is we have to account for something that is not the result of cause and effect or nothing gets started.
Is the answer an unmoved eternal something or a free eternal something, something that moves itself?
--Dave
But you are relying on fallible human intuition here. Much of what we are learning about life the universe and just about everything, through the scientific method, turns out to be totally counter-intuitive.
See Quantum mechanics
And see: here
There is a wealth of information out there about how poor common sense and intuition can be when trying to understand deeper questions about reality.
Clearly, philosophy and theology are the wrong tools for this pursuit. We are all (all of us, secular and religious) subject to cognitive biases. Evidently there is only one endeavour that has shown itself capable making genuine inroads into what is actually going on, and it ain't religion.
There is obviously so much we just don't know yet. Pretending you do is fun an all, but ultimately it's fools gold. :think:
Have a read of this classic paper (link below) from Andre Linde on implications of inflation theory. Note that this isn't the amateur, hand waving sort of pop-philosophy that you present above, but a quantitative set of theories that is both internally logically consistent and consistent with a whole class of quantum theories as well as matching the quantitative observations of the universe, such as the spacial frequency spectrum of the cosmic background radiation.
http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/Eternal86.pdf : Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe, 1986
The maths is rather heavy, but read sections 1 and 6 (intro and summary) which are written is fairly plain English. Have a read, and let me know what you think.
But you are relying on fallible human intuition here. Much of what we are learning about life the universe and just about everything, through the scientific method, turns out to be totally counter-intuitive.
See Quantum mechanics
And see: here
There is a wealth of information out there about how poor common sense and intuition can be when trying to understand deeper questions about reality.
Clearly, philosophy and theology are the wrong tools for this pursuit. We are all (all of us, secular and religious) subject to cognitive biases. Evidently there is only one endeavour that has shown itself capable making genuine inroads into what is actually going on, and it ain't religion.
There is obviously so much we just don't know yet. Pretending you do is fun an all, but ultimately it's fools gold. :think:
That something that moves itself can be the universe, God or both. The limitations of science leave us only with empirical evidence for the universe. Unless of course God comes down, shakes the hands of every scientist (or everyone) and says "I am the force behind all this movement." Until then our belief in God as some "supernatural" entity that moves the universe must be taken on faith, and not from science.
Dear DFT_Dave,
Hi Dave! Yes, that's what Washington Square Park looks like. You make me miss it when you show me a pic of it. Every city should have a park like it. I know this is a bit off-topic but I've been sent to Phoenix and have lived here a number of years so far. The Lord sent me here. I do not want to be here. I would rather be in Florida. They call it here the Valley of the Sun, but an angel told me it was spiritually like the Valley of Armageddon. Whatever. Nobody has to believe me to make it any less than truth. I will stay here until I die. I've already been told that and have resigned myself to it. It's sunny here though at least, and has it's advantages.
Much Love Coming Your Way In Christ Jesus,
Michael
I think you are being a little hard on philosophy. Science is a philosophy, it is natural philosophy. In some higher educational institutions it is still called "The School of Natural Philosophy".
Sure, you'd be hard put to get by without doing philosophy on some level. Even saying that is doing philosophy. What I mean is, when it comes to reliable discovery, progress. inroads into reality and ground-breaking new knowledge, I don't think philosophy alone, that isn't grounded in empirical evidence, is of much use. Though it could be useful in the realm of hypotheses and thought experiments, for sure.
You have to wonder what some of these ancient philosophers who thought up phrases like "unmoved mover, pure actuality, ground of being" etc, might have thought if they lived in more enlightened, science savvy times. They probably would have got far more opposition, I'll bet. For sure modern philosophers like WLC don't get a free ride
Anyway, lets take a small peek at these:
Sleeping Rosetta Spacecraft Wakes Up for Historic Comet Rendezvous and Landing
Manned mission to Mars
I doubt it will happen in my lifetime but my great grand kids or great, great grand kids could witness a manned mission to Mars. How wondrous is that?
I don't mean to be hard on philosophers, we always need deep thinkers, but I think these are exiting times. And if I'm honest, I'm not inclined to give much credit to philosophy and theology in that respect.
Cheers :up:
Explain your, short version, world view.
A theory is not an established fact, or law of, science. Quantum is theoretical, so is the theory of relativity, string theory, bounce theory, theory of multi-universes and mini-universes.
Is human rationality also counter intuitive? Even in scientific method there are things presumed to be true that may not be true, or is it infallible?
--Dave
Yes, I realize the significance of empirical evidence as a way to verify/falsify any philosophical proposition.
Well those terms are just another way to describe the abstract idea of potential or as Plato called it:
The Forms
I will.
I was a philosophy major in college. I started off in the philosophy of ethics because at one point I wanted to become an attorney. My interest then broadened into almost every form of philosophy especially that of epistemology, because that is useful in any area of life. Even in the philosophy of ethics I recognized the value of quantitative/qualitative units which were offered by John Stuart Mill when he came up with a unit to measure the utility of an action he called a hedon. I realize that even at this level, much is still rather theoretical, and that practical applications not always easy to come by.