Writing the previous post about religion reminded me that I never did comment on the two student panels on religious matters that I went to a couple of weeks ago. The details aren’t terribly important, but they provide some local…

How can a six-foot tall human being ‘fit’ inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

It is troublesome that such motivation might have had one wonder about this in an inductive/deductive way.:)

Thanks

I don’t see why the infinite regress is ‘impossible’, either. It’s certainly inconvenient, but we don’t get to pick.

The plate shown talks about euclidean realities?

If such regression, and in this case reductionism is taken down to a certain level, I see where you might run into problems.

It’s the “first principle” I am drawing your attention too. It’s a leap of sorts, after having entered the loop. What is the foundational basis that people want?

So you do not accept such intuitive leaps? I know “Wow” is not acceptable, but model creation is:)

So you choose? I believe that this choice is the “longing” in all of us.:)Science may have no room for such psychologies, but it might understand the deeper motivations that would fuel a scientist who is seeking a truth.

Hopefully I may not have overstep the boundaries of this blog. So I’ll pull back now, and let others have ago at it.

I don’t see why the infinite regress is ‘impossible’, either. It’s certainly inconvenient, but we don’t get to pick.

That anything is ’self-evident’ is a dangerous idea. We pick assumptions that feel right and yield deductive results that we like, but we shouldn’t assume ’self-evident truths’. Once we’re clear about the fact that we are basing our reasoning on assumptions, things become a lot more transparent. There are plenty of basic assumptions that we all seem to like, so in general we aren’t in too much trouble, but I think that it’s worth remembering at least occasionally that these are, in fact, assumptions (I didn’t say ‘just’ for the same reason that I don’t like ‘just a theory’, i.e., it’s all we’ve got).

The basis of what I am saying is in the idea of cyclical natures being realized. Not that it is right/wrong but would be consistent with our assessment of the deeper moves into assessing our realities. Theoretical induction and experimental deduction.

Plato:You had to understand that the induction part is really half of a cyclical process, from inductive/deductive reasoning, for our “striving” to make us whole?

Maybe you choose to ignore it?:)More on name

Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the “regress of reasons.” Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are “first principles.” The “Problem of First Principles” arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle’s answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.

You had to understand that the induction part is really half of a cyclical process, from inductive/deductive reasoning, for our “striving” to make us whole?

Perfecting morally and rightously, until we are each satisfied/ nothing further initiated?

Without further knowledge, how is it, that you could have moved, or, changed in your belief?

An atheist/cateloic/buddhist might continue to form logic, around his status? Not want to change, or has found nothing convincing.