Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Miracle Of The Sun & Other Musings
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 260 of 327 (882310)
09-17-2020 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Trump won
09-17-2020 2:11 AM


Code
Well for certain the universe does not operate on code or anything remotely like it. That was ruled out by the Kochen-Specker and Bell theorems in the 50s and 60s and the experiments confirming them which proved the notion of the universe being in anyway like "code" was false.
Code suggests something like a computer program, i.e. has a state that is then updated into a new state by some rules. This was the Newtonian-Laplacian paradigm where the "state" went by various names and the "rules/algorithms" were known as the "laws of nature". Physics dropped this whole paradigm in the late 1920s and per the theorems above it was shown that it will never be the paradigm again.
Edited by Son Goku, : Clarity of timeline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Trump won, posted 09-17-2020 2:11 AM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Trump won, posted 09-18-2020 12:47 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 278 of 327 (882328)
09-18-2020 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Trump won
09-18-2020 12:47 AM


Re: Code
The problem is all of this is very vague. What exactly does "superstructure", "matter" and "instructions" mean here.
Depending on how you define things we already know of material events with no cause, or that matter doesn't capture all of reality or that matter itself has the power to create events out of nothing.
So you'd have to be more specific in what all these terms actually mean in order to start discussing what we know of reality.
That's not to mention this engages in the old dichotomy of the only options being:
A certain vague kind materialist reductionism
or
Some form of Christian monotheism
Not only are there other religious views but there is also various other physicalist views or non-physicalist and yet still not religious views.
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Trump won, posted 09-18-2020 12:47 AM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Phat, posted 09-18-2020 12:30 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 327 (882384)
09-20-2020 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Phat
09-18-2020 12:30 PM


Re: Code
In general I'm not too fond of various "-isms" because they're often classifications of the world arrived at purely from armchair conjecturing based on little scientific knowledge and when I've spoken with philosophers they often ask me which of these early 20th century "-isms" modern physics tells us is true. Where to me the answer seems to be none.
From what I've read of physicalism I would say it is false in the sense that it can't be supported in light of quantum theory. Then again there seems to be a debate among philosophers as to what "physicalism" means, with once again that discussion seeming to take place independent of the actual science of physics so I'm not sure of its worth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Phat, posted 09-18-2020 12:30 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Phat, posted 09-20-2020 9:34 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 294 of 327 (882394)
09-20-2020 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Phat
09-20-2020 9:34 AM


Re: Code
I wasn't brought up religious no.
I wouldn't say I get a "sense of certainty" from science, I just enjoy it like I enjoy any hobby. It's more about how interesting it is rather than providing certainty or similar.
I will say though in addition that the notion of "faith" or "certainty provided by faith" are very American ideas to me. Although people in Ireland are very Catholic and especially more so in the past it doesn't play the same social function as it does in America, at least as far as I have gleaned from the net. Very Catholic people here don't ever really say how faith provides certainty in their life, it would be closer to the way Japanese people are with Shinto where it's a big part of the culture of being Japanese but there's less emphasis on metaphysical questions like "are Kami real" and "what do they want" etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Phat, posted 09-20-2020 9:34 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Phat, posted 09-23-2020 2:57 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 319 of 327 (882477)
09-24-2020 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Phat
09-23-2020 2:57 AM


Re: How much of secular philosophy is objectively true?
So I would take several opposing concepts from scripture. Light & Dark or Visible & Invisible, for example.
And I would use them to make a point which encourages free associative type thinking. This differs from Science in that its not objectively factual...and my critics may charge me with being dishonest through making stuff up.
My response is that what they teach only reinforces doubt. I market certainty in Jesus Christ.
They charge me with "making God up". I'm starting to think that it is useless to attempt to disprove this notion.
I think a few concepts are being mixed up here and in other posts, especially the idea of "relativist". The people you are calling "relativist" are really either just stating how your conclusion can't really be drawn from inter-subjectively accessible evidence. There's a difference between that and relativism.
Relativism to me would me something along the lines of Ganesh is literally real to Hindus while Thor is literally real to Scandinavians and so on, i.e. that multiple mutually contradictory theological metaphysical views are simultaneously true each within their culture. It could also mean they are each of equal cultural value.
However people here aren't really discussing either of those possibilities. They're simply saying how for the external observer there's nothing outside of personal testimony for each of these gods.
Imagine I lived on an island and had scanned the horizon never seeing another landmass multiple times. One day I meet some people who each say they have in fact sailed out there. One says he saw another island, another saw a monster, another saw a floating city and so on. They all have nothing to corroborate this. It's not relativism to say "Sorry guys, I can't accept any of this".
Even if we imagine you are correct none of this would be relativism. It would just be not believing due to the lack of sufficiently convincing evidence.
Beyond this I would say two things:
(a) As far as I can see from commentaries on the original Hebrew, the Bible isn't really monotheistic. Yahweh says he will punish the gods of Egypt, the Psalms say he will punish others in the divine council, even calling these others "gods".
(b) The phrase "marketing certainty in Jesus Christ" is an interesting example of cultural differences. Again my main exposure to religion is Irish Catholicism to which phrases like this would be kind of alien. First of all because being certain in your faith is not as stressed here, in fact doubt is a big part of being Catholic here, it's supposed to be present as part of faith. Also the use of words like "marketing" would be seen as inappropriate as such since it applies mundane concepts to the transcendent. Not that this makes Irish Catholicism likely in any sense just that I want to emphasise that confining the debate to:
19th Century Science inspired materialist Atheism vs Post-Enlightenment American Evangelical Protestantism
creates a very distorted view of both the religious and scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Phat, posted 09-23-2020 2:57 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024