kbertsche writes: The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character.
This seems to say that you live in a fake world, with The Wizard of Oz as puppet master behind the scenes, pulling strings and levers in order to maintain the illusion that it is real.
Bolder-dash writes: You are sitting in a room, on a place in the earth, the same as everyone else is, pondering what you think seems to be true. You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks.
Since cavediver actually is a theoretical physicist, what he says does carry a bit more weight than, for example, what you say on the subject.
Bolder-dash writes: The "laws" of the universe appear to be intelligently crafted.
If you study some of the history of science, you will see that they were crafted by intelligent human scientists. So, yes, I would say that they are intelligently crafted.
Bolder-dash writes: I don't know how one comes to the philosophical perspective that you do, that one can just say 'they just are what they are" and that this somehow dismisses the necessity to explain how or why things came to be as they are.
The world is just as it is. If you don't agree, then I suppose you would be saying that the world isn't just as it is, and that would be a very strange thing to say.
Bolder-dash writes: Well, let's see, I wrote that a theoretical physicist has no more intrinsic ability to look at the world around them, see the order, imagine what is chaos, and draw conclusions about the unseen.
Bolder-dash writes: You are sitting in a room, on a place in the earth, the same as everyone else is, pondering what you think seems to be true. You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks.
That bears little resemblance to what you now claim that you said.
The earlier statement (from Message 56) was an assertion about validity. Your newer claim is that it was an assertion about intrinsic ability.
If you cannot even correctly describe what you yourself said in an earlier post, then it is hard to see why anybody should ever pay attention to anything you say.
slevesque writes: If I say ''God sustains the laws of physics'', which is a metaphysical statement, how can this not be metaphysical for anyone, regardless of their worldview?
It will be seen by some as metaphorical, provided that they give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is meaningful.
For those who see "God" as a metaphor, it couldn't be anything else.
slevesque writes: It goes without saying that the statement has to be meaningful ...
That's to be doubted.
slevesque writes: But even if I tell you that ''Xyroflexians use specially made Roteflaziozos to make objects fall to the ground'', and you know I actually some kind of mental image of what both those thigns are, even if you think it is complete bullocks you still have to view my claim as metaphysical.
I don't even have to view it as a claim.
slevesque writes: It doesn't depend on your own worldview or point of view.
Meaning is subjective. In a conversation, a speaker and a listener are not guaranteed to take it the same way.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
