Re: You're welcome.
JR, we are trying to beat the X32 post for largest circle jerk thread. :lol:
JR, we are trying to beat the X32 post for largest circle jerk thread. :lol:
You're welcome.
- Thread starter John Norris
- Start date
Re: You're welcome.
Allthough quite fundamental to our existence, I think it is also one of the most absurd questions that can be asked.
"Why" is also somewhat ambigous, are you asking "How did it come about?" or "What is the pupose?"?
Assuming purpose implies religion of some sort, so that leaves the "How" for philosophy and science. Pondering why the universe decided to exist is not something I would like to spend my time doing.
This distinction can not be made between science and pseudoscience, ideological science and what have you. There are so many examples of what we like to think of as bona fide science spending years and dollars in the pursuit of evidence to support already formed theories. Recent experiments at CERN being a prime example.
In my humble opinion, I think the more interesting question is the one that as physics and cosmology continues to move full-steam ahead has gotten a lot of attention lately--Why is there something rather than nothing? This is a very interesting question because it does not deal directly with creation ex nihilo, but rather deals in this very moment right now. All physical beings within space-time, including space-time itself, need not exist right now. There is nothing by their very nature that makes their existence necessary. So the question becomes why do we exist at all right now? A person realizes that this is the most basic and fundamental of questions that needs to be answered. This then leads to the distinction of essence and existence. Where an essence is somethings "whatness" i.e., treeness, dogness, Hamletness. This is simply what something is by its very nature. But that something having this "whatness" does not require that is has "thatness." Thatness is existence. Obviously treeness and dogness has existence, but Hamlet most definetely has an essence, specifically that character in Shakespeare's play. And we can entertain a picture of Hamlet in our mind and reason about Hamlet's decisions within the play, but none of this means that Hamlet actually exists. In fact, he doesn't.
So again we come to the point of, what in this very moment is responsible for the existence, the "thatness", of every single existent thing? I will leave it open-ended as this is always a good question to contemplate as we are dozing off tonight!(This is also a specifically philosophical answer we are looking for, not a theological answer.)
Allthough quite fundamental to our existence, I think it is also one of the most absurd questions that can be asked.
"Why" is also somewhat ambigous, are you asking "How did it come about?" or "What is the pupose?"?
Assuming purpose implies religion of some sort, so that leaves the "How" for philosophy and science. Pondering why the universe decided to exist is not something I would like to spend my time doing.
This distinction can not be made between science and pseudoscience, ideological science and what have you. There are so many examples of what we like to think of as bona fide science spending years and dollars in the pursuit of evidence to support already formed theories. Recent experiments at CERN being a prime example.
Re: You're welcome.
Hi Mike,
Yes I believe we are on the same page, and as you point there is a huge difference between the modern C/ID thoughts and teleological arguments.
Take Care,
Phil
Hi Mike,
Yes I believe we are on the same page, and as you point there is a huge difference between the modern C/ID thoughts and teleological arguments.
Take Care,
Phil
Re: You're welcome.
Hi Per,
The question is actually asking most specifically, why at this very moment do we continue in existence? Because as I mentioned above there is nothing in our very nature, or the nature of the universe that necessitates that it exists at this very moment. Now one can also direct this question to become a question of becoming, i.e., why did the physical universe come into existence at all, which opens up the can of worms of figuring out if one can prove philosophically that the physical universe had to have a beginning. (Although cosmology itself has been heading in the direction of showing that especially in the last 15 years.)
It is a very valid question because if one is doing any sort of science and asks the question, why did x behave as y, and one answers, "Just because it did" one would not take this answer as a serious answer to the question. In the same way when the philosopher asks why does the universe go through the bother of existing at this very moment, as Stephen Hawking posed, if one answers "just because it does" that is again not a valid or serious answer to the question.
This is a philosophical question as you note and is also the most fundamental of questions. And I agree that not all people will find it interesting to think about it. But that's why we leave it to the crazy philosopher people, and amateur philosophers like myself. The fascination of being able to come to ultimate knowledge of the first causes existence itself through reason alone is quite amazing, and to much to keep me from writing of questions such as these!
Take Care,
Phil
Hi Per,
The question is actually asking most specifically, why at this very moment do we continue in existence? Because as I mentioned above there is nothing in our very nature, or the nature of the universe that necessitates that it exists at this very moment. Now one can also direct this question to become a question of becoming, i.e., why did the physical universe come into existence at all, which opens up the can of worms of figuring out if one can prove philosophically that the physical universe had to have a beginning. (Although cosmology itself has been heading in the direction of showing that especially in the last 15 years.)
It is a very valid question because if one is doing any sort of science and asks the question, why did x behave as y, and one answers, "Just because it did" one would not take this answer as a serious answer to the question. In the same way when the philosopher asks why does the universe go through the bother of existing at this very moment, as Stephen Hawking posed, if one answers "just because it does" that is again not a valid or serious answer to the question.
This is a philosophical question as you note and is also the most fundamental of questions. And I agree that not all people will find it interesting to think about it. But that's why we leave it to the crazy philosopher people, and amateur philosophers like myself.
The fascination of being able to come to ultimate knowledge of the first causes existence itself through reason alone is quite amazing, and to much to keep me from writing of questions such as these!Take Care,
Phil
Re: You're welcome.
I do understand why people ask these questions, and I'm not arguing against the validity of these questions, but I still think they are somewhat absurd. Traditional thinking and traditional science accept the notion of a steady state without further explanation. A system exists in an unaltered state (allthough dynamic) untill something changes it, we accept this as a fact because all observations support it. Thus we have to accept that we exist now because we existed five minutes ago and we will probably exist in five minutes unless some outside event alters that. The laws of nature as we know them support this view, allthough quantum physics tells us that spontanious changes will occur, but (allmost) never on a grand scale as statistics will tell us.
If it is wrong to accept that a basic premise for our thinking exists, and that everything has to be challenged and answered in the name of science, then it is sometimes hard to move forward because an infinite chain of reciprocal "but why" will drag us backwards into an intellectual black hole.
I have got no problem with envisioning an eternal, indefinite, all encompassing omniverse that doesn't leave a lot of questions unanswered. My model might not be right, but it certainly doesn't necessitate questions along the lines of why the universe chose to exist and why it still chooses to exist. It is what it is because the laws of nature dictates that it has to be that way, and looking for a basic truth behind the basic truth is futile and ill-conceived in my mind. Science might search for deeper understanding of the basic laws already established, like disecting the basic particles and the forces to get a more detailed understanding, but untill someone discovers that it all can be reassembled into nothingness, I think we should happily accept existence as a given constant and a basic premise.
Reasoning might take you down all kinds of paths, into dark caves and dark waters, so take care and come up for air sometimes~;-)~:wink: ,
Per
Hi there Phil,
I do understand why people ask these questions, and I'm not arguing against the validity of these questions, but I still think they are somewhat absurd. Traditional thinking and traditional science accept the notion of a steady state without further explanation. A system exists in an unaltered state (allthough dynamic) untill something changes it, we accept this as a fact because all observations support it. Thus we have to accept that we exist now because we existed five minutes ago and we will probably exist in five minutes unless some outside event alters that. The laws of nature as we know them support this view, allthough quantum physics tells us that spontanious changes will occur, but (allmost) never on a grand scale as statistics will tell us.
If it is wrong to accept that a basic premise for our thinking exists, and that everything has to be challenged and answered in the name of science, then it is sometimes hard to move forward because an infinite chain of reciprocal "but why" will drag us backwards into an intellectual black hole.
I have got no problem with envisioning an eternal, indefinite, all encompassing omniverse that doesn't leave a lot of questions unanswered. My model might not be right, but it certainly doesn't necessitate questions along the lines of why the universe chose to exist and why it still chooses to exist. It is what it is because the laws of nature dictates that it has to be that way, and looking for a basic truth behind the basic truth is futile and ill-conceived in my mind. Science might search for deeper understanding of the basic laws already established, like disecting the basic particles and the forces to get a more detailed understanding, but untill someone discovers that it all can be reassembled into nothingness, I think we should happily accept existence as a given constant and a basic premise.
This is a philosophical question as you note and is also the most fundamental of questions. And I agree that not all people will find it interesting to think about it. But that's why we leave it to the crazy philosopher people, and amateur philosophers like myself.
Take Care,
Phil
Reasoning might take you down all kinds of paths, into dark caves and dark waters, so take care and come up for air sometimes
~;-)~:wink: ,Per
Re: You're welcome.
I guess we should be encouraged that so many people can climb to the top of Maslow's pyramid (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) and look down to ponder their naval. Too many do not have that luxury, being occupied by the mundane.
If Socrates and Plato could ponder their naval there is no reason modern man shouldn't.
If it feels good, do it.
JR
PS: That x32 thread looks like some kind of record, for most audio forums I am familiar with. I hope Bennet gets some benefit from all those eyeballs. The majority of whom either just dropped a pile of money, or are about to on a digital mixer. Seems like a target rich environment for equipment advertisers even though they are on the value end of the spectrum, that is where the money is.
I guess we should be encouraged that so many people can climb to the top of Maslow's pyramid (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) and look down to ponder their naval. Too many do not have that luxury, being occupied by the mundane.
If Socrates and Plato could ponder their naval there is no reason modern man shouldn't.
If it feels good, do it.
JR
PS: That x32 thread looks like some kind of record, for most audio forums I am familiar with. I hope Bennet gets some benefit from all those eyeballs. The majority of whom either just dropped a pile of money, or are about to on a digital mixer. Seems like a target rich environment for equipment advertisers even though they are on the value end of the spectrum, that is where the money is.
Re: You're welcome.
Hi Per,
We come to realize that the laws simply state and explain what is. They do nothing to study the actual being of the object. That is why it is absurd to say that laws as such can have any sort of casual powers on anything. The laws don't do anything, they simply explain what is taking place. It is the actual existence of the beings that actually have the casual powers to act of other beings.
And example of this is simply the law of gravity and 2 large objects. (Say a planet and the sun.) Is it specifically because of the law itself, the law of gravity, that the planet is orbiting around the sun? Of course not, it is because the 2 objects, by their very nature, have these casual powers and react in a certain way that we explain as "the law of gravity." In other words, the law of gravity cannot exist apart from actual real beings. If their was no physical universe there would be nothing to explain using the law of gravity.
You have hit the head on the nail right here. All studies and sciences presuppose this, as it isn't their job to ask whether there is actually a reality and being to study and if it is actually intelligible. (As I saw posted above, someone linked to a video that said something about relaity simply being some virtual reality or brain-in-a-vat type situation.)
That is why metaphysics had been called "first science." This is because metaphysics is the ground upon which all other sciences can actually make sense to be actually taking part in. This does not mean that metaphysics is somehow better than those sciences as they each study different things. That is why there is an issue when someone like Stephen Hawking in his most recent work, "The Grand Design" tried to do philosophy using physics. (And most recently with theoretical physicist Sean Carroll.) They are both brilliant physicists but not while trying to do philosophy. It is as wrong as trying to do physics by using philosophy. They are both valid ways of studying the universe but they are studying different things. But again that can't mean that there can be any true contradictions between the two.
The big distinction is that the sciences study specific parts of being, where metaphysics studies being as being itself. That is why it is the ground for all other studies and sciences since they presuppose being and its intelligibility.
And that is exactly what philosophy saves us from! It saves us from falling into that intellectual black hole. It can guarantee that it makes sense to be studying physics, biology, etc. Unfortunately a great amount of modern philosophy has started to want to drag us into that black hole, but if one takes up a modern Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics the day can be saved. (Which is starting to be realized in our day when people realize the dark hole that Descartes and Hume were leading us too.)
I agree, that is why it can be so important to have these sorts of discussions so that others may be able to point out obvious reasoning problems. Luckily Aristotelian metaphysics has had over 2000 years to develop so the basic truths are pretty well understood and established, especially within a Thomistic metaphysics. (While that doesn't mean that there still isn't much to do.)
I find that having a sort of "prayerful attitude" toward doing this type of work is helpful so that one can actually see reality as it is presented to us, not as we wish to see it.
I apologize for the long reply, but we are getting into some good stuff here!
Take Care!
Phil
Hi Per,
We come to realize that the laws simply state and explain what is. They do nothing to study the actual being of the object. That is why it is absurd to say that laws as such can have any sort of casual powers on anything. The laws don't do anything, they simply explain what is taking place. It is the actual existence of the beings that actually have the casual powers to act of other beings.
And example of this is simply the law of gravity and 2 large objects. (Say a planet and the sun.) Is it specifically because of the law itself, the law of gravity, that the planet is orbiting around the sun? Of course not, it is because the 2 objects, by their very nature, have these casual powers and react in a certain way that we explain as "the law of gravity." In other words, the law of gravity cannot exist apart from actual real beings. If their was no physical universe there would be nothing to explain using the law of gravity.
You have hit the head on the nail right here. All studies and sciences presuppose this, as it isn't their job to ask whether there is actually a reality and being to study and if it is actually intelligible. (As I saw posted above, someone linked to a video that said something about relaity simply being some virtual reality or brain-in-a-vat type situation.)
That is why metaphysics had been called "first science." This is because metaphysics is the ground upon which all other sciences can actually make sense to be actually taking part in. This does not mean that metaphysics is somehow better than those sciences as they each study different things. That is why there is an issue when someone like Stephen Hawking in his most recent work, "The Grand Design" tried to do philosophy using physics. (And most recently with theoretical physicist Sean Carroll.) They are both brilliant physicists but not while trying to do philosophy. It is as wrong as trying to do physics by using philosophy. They are both valid ways of studying the universe but they are studying different things. But again that can't mean that there can be any true contradictions between the two.
The big distinction is that the sciences study specific parts of being, where metaphysics studies being as being itself. That is why it is the ground for all other studies and sciences since they presuppose being and its intelligibility.
And that is exactly what philosophy saves us from! It saves us from falling into that intellectual black hole. It can guarantee that it makes sense to be studying physics, biology, etc. Unfortunately a great amount of modern philosophy has started to want to drag us into that black hole, but if one takes up a modern Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics the day can be saved. (Which is starting to be realized in our day when people realize the dark hole that Descartes and Hume were leading us too.)
I agree, that is why it can be so important to have these sorts of discussions so that others may be able to point out obvious reasoning problems. Luckily Aristotelian metaphysics has had over 2000 years to develop so the basic truths are pretty well understood and established, especially within a Thomistic metaphysics. (While that doesn't mean that there still isn't much to do.)
I find that having a sort of "prayerful attitude" toward doing this type of work is helpful so that one can actually see reality as it is presented to us, not as we wish to see it.
I apologize for the long reply, but we are getting into some good stuff here!
Take Care!
Phil
Last edited:
Re: You're welcome.
A few things.
First off, I have thought about it a lot. I don't know when I came to this conclusion, or how. But as long as I can remember, I have thought of the bible as a guide as to how to live. Thou shalt not kill, etc.
And that just as all stories my brother told, there might be an element of truth, it might be verbatim how it happened, or it might be completely fabricated to make a point. It all comes down to Noah's Ark. And trying to defend that one as science has many twisting in their Civil Engineering boots. (And leads to weird museums in far away and imaginary lands like Kentucky.) (Just for the record I am against the reintroduction of Velociraptors.)
Next, the bible is also not as permanent as it first seems to be. There is the fact that it was written in languages different from those that most of us here speak. And the language it its written in can have a profound effect on how it is meant, and taken. This does not even take into account the difficulty of translating it. Then add the fact that there were no copy machines, or printing presses, and that interns were given the job of writing the bible out by hand, and that there were mistakes made from time to time, and these mistakes re-written in the next copy. And finally that there were stories added to the bible along the way. The most famous of these is the story of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." A good story, and worth having in there, but added hundreds of years after Jesus' death.
A couple of weeks ago I heard a story on the radio about evolution. That several mathematicians have a new theory that for about the first billion years, life on earth was an open source. As in, if one being developed a new gene that would do some certain thing, that those around it could share that gene, and vice versa. Then after that point beings started becoming closed systems, and developing individually.
A few things.
First off, I have thought about it a lot. I don't know when I came to this conclusion, or how. But as long as I can remember, I have thought of the bible as a guide as to how to live. Thou shalt not kill, etc.
And that just as all stories my brother told, there might be an element of truth, it might be verbatim how it happened, or it might be completely fabricated to make a point. It all comes down to Noah's Ark. And trying to defend that one as science has many twisting in their Civil Engineering boots. (And leads to weird museums in far away and imaginary lands like Kentucky.) (Just for the record I am against the reintroduction of Velociraptors.)
Next, the bible is also not as permanent as it first seems to be. There is the fact that it was written in languages different from those that most of us here speak. And the language it its written in can have a profound effect on how it is meant, and taken. This does not even take into account the difficulty of translating it. Then add the fact that there were no copy machines, or printing presses, and that interns were given the job of writing the bible out by hand, and that there were mistakes made from time to time, and these mistakes re-written in the next copy. And finally that there were stories added to the bible along the way. The most famous of these is the story of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." A good story, and worth having in there, but added hundreds of years after Jesus' death.
A couple of weeks ago I heard a story on the radio about evolution. That several mathematicians have a new theory that for about the first billion years, life on earth was an open source. As in, if one being developed a new gene that would do some certain thing, that those around it could share that gene, and vice versa. Then after that point beings started becoming closed systems, and developing individually.
Re: You're welcome.
Not my area of study here. Question, how does our perhaps limited perception of time impact these discussions?
Not my area of study here. Question, how does our perhaps limited perception of time impact these discussions?
Re: You're welcome.
Hi John,
Philosophy of time is another very interesting and definitely one of the more confusing subjects in philosophy that I have come upon, so unfortunately I probably won't be able to answer your question very completely. But I shall take a more roundabout way to hopefully shed some light on your question.
The big question about time has always been is time a real being, a mental being, or a combination of both? We first need to realize that time implies real succession or change. Without real succession of some kind there is no basis for distinguishing a "before" or "after." Time is inseparably dependent upon real change, succession, as its foundation. In that case it does not make sense to treat time as though it were some entity in its own right prior to change, which then measures all change and succession. This is a conception in which time is thought of as some "River of Time" (i.e., Newton/Kant).
But on the other hand, real change by itself is not enough to generate time. If real succession is taken by itself, then it is only the present phase of it that here and now actually is; the past is already gone and the future is not yet here. But when we use time we aren't simply talking about this present fleeting moment. We are talking about the past, present, and future all at a single time. Time does not appear unless the various phases of the succession are compared and recognized as before and after one another. The past, present, and future can only be made this way by some mode of being that can make them present simultaneously. The only way that this can be done is by the mode of consciousness that can make past, present, and future each present to each other at the same time.
Time can now be stated formally as "the unification in some consciousness of the successive phases of a real process of change, recognized as before or after (or successive to) each together." (Clarke) Put another way, it is the creative synthesis of real and mental being; its foundation is real being, but it exists formally and explicitly as time only as a mental being, a being in consciousness.
This all ends up tying into Einstein's theory of relativity in the idea that space-time must be intimately tied together. In other words, they are not two distinct real beings as the above is showing. Einstein also made the point that time is relative to the position of the observer in space. So again this places time as connected and relative to a real consciousness. In other words it abolished the absoluteness of time that we showed above to be false, and reinforced the idea that time is the synthesis of both the real succession of change and a mental being.
Also because it focuses on real succession of beings changing and coming into and out of existence, time travel is not possible. Besides all the paradoxes that would be introduced by time travel, things coming actually into and out of being would preclude going back in time after something has gone out of existence, and vice versa for going into the future. (Sorry to have to be the killjoy and fun-sucker on time travel, but I think in our hearts we all knew it really wasn't possible )
------
So now we can make some connection in that the focus of our metaphysics turns towards being, or existence, again. We again start with being and observe its causes and effects is has on one another and can come to understand the structure of reality through that. So to state an answer to your question, John, I don't think time makes much a difference at all, because we start with being again. And this view of time is very much supported by modern physics and scientific thought. (But again not to say that little clarifications and modification may still need to be made.)
So hope this helps in some way John!
Phil
*1st 3 paragraphs are a summary of W. Norris Clarke's chapter on time in his work "The One and The Many"
Hi John,
Philosophy of time is another very interesting and definitely one of the more confusing subjects in philosophy that I have come upon, so unfortunately I probably won't be able to answer your question very completely. But I shall take a more roundabout way to hopefully shed some light on your question.
The big question about time has always been is time a real being, a mental being, or a combination of both? We first need to realize that time implies real succession or change. Without real succession of some kind there is no basis for distinguishing a "before" or "after." Time is inseparably dependent upon real change, succession, as its foundation. In that case it does not make sense to treat time as though it were some entity in its own right prior to change, which then measures all change and succession. This is a conception in which time is thought of as some "River of Time" (i.e., Newton/Kant).
But on the other hand, real change by itself is not enough to generate time. If real succession is taken by itself, then it is only the present phase of it that here and now actually is; the past is already gone and the future is not yet here. But when we use time we aren't simply talking about this present fleeting moment. We are talking about the past, present, and future all at a single time. Time does not appear unless the various phases of the succession are compared and recognized as before and after one another. The past, present, and future can only be made this way by some mode of being that can make them present simultaneously. The only way that this can be done is by the mode of consciousness that can make past, present, and future each present to each other at the same time.
Time can now be stated formally as "the unification in some consciousness of the successive phases of a real process of change, recognized as before or after (or successive to) each together." (Clarke) Put another way, it is the creative synthesis of real and mental being; its foundation is real being, but it exists formally and explicitly as time only as a mental being, a being in consciousness.
This all ends up tying into Einstein's theory of relativity in the idea that space-time must be intimately tied together. In other words, they are not two distinct real beings as the above is showing. Einstein also made the point that time is relative to the position of the observer in space. So again this places time as connected and relative to a real consciousness. In other words it abolished the absoluteness of time that we showed above to be false, and reinforced the idea that time is the synthesis of both the real succession of change and a mental being.
Also because it focuses on real succession of beings changing and coming into and out of existence, time travel is not possible. Besides all the paradoxes that would be introduced by time travel, things coming actually into and out of being would preclude going back in time after something has gone out of existence, and vice versa for going into the future. (Sorry to have to be the killjoy and fun-sucker on time travel, but I think in our hearts we all knew it really wasn't possible
)------
So now we can make some connection in that the focus of our metaphysics turns towards being, or existence, again. We again start with being and observe its causes and effects is has on one another and can come to understand the structure of reality through that. So to state an answer to your question, John, I don't think time makes much a difference at all, because we start with being again. And this view of time is very much supported by modern physics and scientific thought. (But again not to say that little clarifications and modification may still need to be made.)
So hope this helps in some way John!
Phil
*1st 3 paragraphs are a summary of W. Norris Clarke's chapter on time in his work "The One and The Many"
Last edited:
Re: You're welcome.
while a Metaphysicist might see a distinction here, I believe this is a question of semantics. I'm sure that it is absolutely clear to us all that the Laws of Physics doesn't actually govern anything and are in fact not laws or rules but descriptions of how stuff behave.
Everybody uses the expression and everybody understand what it means.
I agree that the universe have to exist for us to describe it, but given the fact that the universe's existence is a prerequisite for our existence, I would say that it is a very moot point indeed.
Particle physics are getting closer and closer to the actual, fundamental nature of matter, or so we are told. Like all things are getting closer and closer to a complete expanation that doesn't require a divine being to fill the gaps, we are at the same time getting closer to an understanding that doen't require metaphysics or philosophy.
While the early philosophers had a nearly unlimited source of unexplained phenomena for them to ponder, the hard sciences have removed virtually everything from the realm of the unknown, and metaphysics have to look beyond for stuff to ponder. Even astrophysics and particle physics are looking beyond the horizon of existence these days, so there is obviously very little left for the meta-sciences to claim as their exclusive and undisturbed territory.
It is a shame really, that so many brilliant minds are spending their time looking into the darkness of the void when so many tangible areas could do well with a bit of informed science. Wouldn't we all be better of if more thought was put into wasting the world's food resources on producing fuel and lining con artist's pockets with billions of CO2 quota dollars? Wouldn't it be better if any philosopher with half a brain could explain to the powers that be that waging war in foreign countries to catch terrorists produce more potential terrorists than the western world will ever be able to handle?
I believe it is fun to occasionally dwelve into the realm of the great unknown and maybe discuss a theory or two and rethink my opinions and my mental models, but too much and too often sometimes means you loose the fresh approach and end up staring yourself blind at a single spot.
Don't ever apologize for being interesting~~:smile:
I have to apologize though for only answering the first part of you post, maybe more to come once my brain stops overheating :razz:
Per
Hi Phil,
while a Metaphysicist might see a distinction here, I believe this is a question of semantics. I'm sure that it is absolutely clear to us all that the Laws of Physics doesn't actually govern anything and are in fact not laws or rules but descriptions of how stuff behave.
Everybody uses the expression and everybody understand what it means.
I agree that the universe have to exist for us to describe it, but given the fact that the universe's existence is a prerequisite for our existence, I would say that it is a very moot point indeed.
Particle physics are getting closer and closer to the actual, fundamental nature of matter, or so we are told. Like all things are getting closer and closer to a complete expanation that doesn't require a divine being to fill the gaps, we are at the same time getting closer to an understanding that doen't require metaphysics or philosophy.
While the early philosophers had a nearly unlimited source of unexplained phenomena for them to ponder, the hard sciences have removed virtually everything from the realm of the unknown, and metaphysics have to look beyond for stuff to ponder. Even astrophysics and particle physics are looking beyond the horizon of existence these days, so there is obviously very little left for the meta-sciences to claim as their exclusive and undisturbed territory.
It is a shame really, that so many brilliant minds are spending their time looking into the darkness of the void when so many tangible areas could do well with a bit of informed science. Wouldn't we all be better of if more thought was put into wasting the world's food resources on producing fuel and lining con artist's pockets with billions of CO2 quota dollars? Wouldn't it be better if any philosopher with half a brain could explain to the powers that be that waging war in foreign countries to catch terrorists produce more potential terrorists than the western world will ever be able to handle?
I believe it is fun to occasionally dwelve into the realm of the great unknown and maybe discuss a theory or two and rethink my opinions and my mental models, but too much and too often sometimes means you loose the fresh approach and end up staring yourself blind at a single spot.
Don't ever apologize for being interesting
~~:smile:I have to apologize though for only answering the first part of you post, maybe more to come once my brain stops overheating :razz:
Per
Re: You're welcome.
Good one, it gives a somewhat plausible explanation to why all life appears to stem from one single cell. Advances in DNA technology have inadvertantly added credit to the Extra Terrestrial Seed theory, but a pool of gene sharing organisms is definitely an explanation.
Good one, it gives a somewhat plausible explanation to why all life appears to stem from one single cell. Advances in DNA technology have inadvertantly added credit to the Extra Terrestrial Seed theory, but a pool of gene sharing organisms is definitely an explanation.
Re: You're welcome.
Wether the universe and our existence is real or not is of no consequence to me. If it turns out that the universe only exist because we believe it exists, or because it believes that it exists, then hopefulle anyone that stumbles upon the truth has got the sense to keep it a secret. If I were to find out that I'm a character in a Grand Theft Auto simulation on Quentin Tarantino's PC, then I might change my ways in order to not disappoint the gameplayer, or living inside any simulation I would probably want to behave in such a way that I would be rewarded with continued existence in other simulations or whatever the perk might be. Being ignorant about the actual state of our existence, I just have to take my chances and behave in a morally and ethically sound manner that will be appropriate whatever the true nature of our existence.
Since all indications are that the true nature of our reality doesn't influence what we are able to learn about the reality, it doesn't even have any impact on the way we go about studying the universe, since it seems to be stable and coherent and any apparent anomalies we have observed seems to have an explanation once we have expanded our knowledge by studying the anomalies we thought we observed. My claim therefore is that these questions might be interesting mental excercises, but ultimately of no consequence.
Wether the universe and our existence is real or not is of no consequence to me. If it turns out that the universe only exist because we believe it exists, or because it believes that it exists, then hopefulle anyone that stumbles upon the truth has got the sense to keep it a secret. If I were to find out that I'm a character in a Grand Theft Auto simulation on Quentin Tarantino's PC, then I might change my ways in order to not disappoint the gameplayer, or living inside any simulation I would probably want to behave in such a way that I would be rewarded with continued existence in other simulations or whatever the perk might be. Being ignorant about the actual state of our existence, I just have to take my chances and behave in a morally and ethically sound manner that will be appropriate whatever the true nature of our existence.
Since all indications are that the true nature of our reality doesn't influence what we are able to learn about the reality, it doesn't even have any impact on the way we go about studying the universe, since it seems to be stable and coherent and any apparent anomalies we have observed seems to have an explanation once we have expanded our knowledge by studying the anomalies we thought we observed. My claim therefore is that these questions might be interesting mental excercises, but ultimately of no consequence.
Re: You're welcome.
The key thing is we live *as if* the physical universe does actually exist, that we can actually know something objectively true about it, and that we are in a causal relationship with it and other beings within it--and it is philosophy's job to show that it is rational to live as we are living and to connect all the dots so we are living consistently and to explain those
I do come across some that would say something along the lines of--I don't care if this physical universe actually exists and that it may not actually exist. The thing is that leads to what is called a "lived contradiction." Meaning their philosophy and how they are actually living are contradictory.
Our goal should be to hold a philosophy that is consistent with how we are living our life. So if we are living our life as if the physical universe actually matters then our philosophy should reflect that.
----
I also know that for many people this couldn't matter any less to them, and the simple answer is to tell them to live as they are with the valid assumption that the physical universe does actually exist and leave the in-depth work to the philosophers. Unfortunately when you also tell them that one of the things that falls out of this is the knowledge that there is a single, unique being that can be known as pure act of existence which we more commonly call God, which then natural law morality falls out of this, many will start to get angry and go back to the ways of holding an intellectual inconsistent philosophy. But it isn't our job to throw this in people's faces and force them to believe what we do. We simply present what we have found to be the truth, and if they come along--great, if not--that is their choice. (Now that doesn't mean that both are right where truth is purely subjective and two contradictory positions can be correct.)
In all, yourself living as if the physical world actually exists is justified, so you have no need to worry and you can feel free to leave the heavy lifting to those darn philosophizers.
Take Care,
Phil
The key thing is we live *as if* the physical universe does actually exist, that we can actually know something objectively true about it, and that we are in a causal relationship with it and other beings within it--and it is philosophy's job to show that it is rational to live as we are living and to connect all the dots so we are living consistently and to explain those
I do come across some that would say something along the lines of--I don't care if this physical universe actually exists and that it may not actually exist. The thing is that leads to what is called a "lived contradiction." Meaning their philosophy and how they are actually living are contradictory.
Our goal should be to hold a philosophy that is consistent with how we are living our life. So if we are living our life as if the physical universe actually matters then our philosophy should reflect that.
----
I also know that for many people this couldn't matter any less to them, and the simple answer is to tell them to live as they are with the valid assumption that the physical universe does actually exist and leave the in-depth work to the philosophers. Unfortunately when you also tell them that one of the things that falls out of this is the knowledge that there is a single, unique being that can be known as pure act of existence which we more commonly call God, which then natural law morality falls out of this, many will start to get angry and go back to the ways of holding an intellectual inconsistent philosophy. But it isn't our job to throw this in people's faces and force them to believe what we do. We simply present what we have found to be the truth, and if they come along--great, if not--that is their choice. (Now that doesn't mean that both are right where truth is purely subjective and two contradictory positions can be correct.)
In all, yourself living as if the physical world actually exists is justified, so you have no need to worry and you can feel free to leave the heavy lifting to those darn philosophizers.
Take Care,
Phil
Last edited:
Re: You're welcome.
Have to run out the door unfortunately, so I'll have to be brief.
No distinction is too small if it actually translates to reality. So I can tell you that there is a big distinction between the law of something and studying the actual causal powers that I mentioned. Again laws simply describe, real beings are the things that have these powers.
Again that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with studying the law of gravity, it is just a different way of studying. Like studying 2 sides of the same coin, both valid and true looking at the same thing, just a different view.
Physics doesn't actually govern anything and are in fact not laws or rules but descriptions of how stuff behave.
In fact, one will never be able to get rid of philosophy/metaphysics. Why? Because particle physics and all the sciences *assumes* metaphysics. In other words, when you say "there is no need for metaphysics because science can explain it all" you are making a metaphysical statement. There is no test you can do using the scientific method that could confirm this statement. Again this is because science assumes metaphysics.
Simply be careful of going down the route of scientism, where one believes that the only way to come to true knowledge about the world around us if through science. (As that statement is self defeating as well.)
So to sum up, philosophy and metaphysics are in no danger, and never will be
Have a great night Per!
Phil
Have to run out the door unfortunately, so I'll have to be brief.
No distinction is too small if it actually translates to reality. So I can tell you that there is a big distinction between the law of something and studying the actual causal powers that I mentioned. Again laws simply describe, real beings are the things that have these powers.
Again that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with studying the law of gravity, it is just a different way of studying. Like studying 2 sides of the same coin, both valid and true looking at the same thing, just a different view.
Physics doesn't actually govern anything and are in fact not laws or rules but descriptions of how stuff behave.
In fact, one will never be able to get rid of philosophy/metaphysics. Why? Because particle physics and all the sciences *assumes* metaphysics. In other words, when you say "there is no need for metaphysics because science can explain it all" you are making a metaphysical statement. There is no test you can do using the scientific method that could confirm this statement. Again this is because science assumes metaphysics.
Simply be careful of going down the route of scientism, where one believes that the only way to come to true knowledge about the world around us if through science. (As that statement is self defeating as well.)
So to sum up, philosophy and metaphysics are in no danger, and never will be
Have a great night Per!
Phil
Re: You're welcome.
And now, in Italy, a stunning example of scientists being found guilty of, in effect, not having a crystal ball.
Italy Finds Scientists Guilty Of Manslaughter For 2009 Earthquake Forecast : The Two-Way : NPR
One can extrapolate the implications of this verdict to virtually any predictive discipline, such as economics, weather, political policy, etc.
And now, in Italy, a stunning example of scientists being found guilty of, in effect, not having a crystal ball.
Italy Finds Scientists Guilty Of Manslaughter For 2009 Earthquake Forecast : The Two-Way : NPR
One can extrapolate the implications of this verdict to virtually any predictive discipline, such as economics, weather, political policy, etc.
Re: You're welcome.
It's good to see that we aren't the only idiots in the world.
I wonder who their expert witnesses were?
JR
It's good to see that we aren't the only idiots in the world.
I wonder who their expert witnesses were?
JR
Re: You're welcome.
You're right, JR - pandering rhetoric from politicians is one thing, but actually imprisoning seismologists for not batting 1.000? In an EU country? My goodness!
Expert witness? Who knows? But no way is this scenario logically analogous to, say, the Indiana State Fair stage collapse, which did turn tragic because of improper action in the face of an absolutely predictable approaching violent weather system. Hopefully this outrageous verdict will be overturned.
You're right, JR - pandering rhetoric from politicians is one thing, but actually imprisoning seismologists for not batting 1.000? In an EU country? My goodness!
Expert witness? Who knows? But no way is this scenario logically analogous to, say, the Indiana State Fair stage collapse, which did turn tragic because of improper action in the face of an absolutely predictable approaching violent weather system. Hopefully this outrageous verdict will be overturned.
Re: You're welcome.
Well, in related news, in Spain humans actually CAUSED the earthquake.
Spanish earthquake that killed nine people was 'man-made' - Europe, World News - Independent.ie
Well, in related news, in Spain humans actually CAUSED the earthquake.
Spanish earthquake that killed nine people was 'man-made' - Europe, World News - Independent.ie