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.

More generally, and not addressed to anyone in particular, I also don’t understand the missionary zeal that some people on either side (atheists or believers) have. I like debating points to improve my own understanding and cohere my own views (this is also why I am content to play Devil’s Advocate), but I don’t care if I change anyone else’s mind, so I guess that I am not much of a missionary. Discussion benefits us all because we at least get to enforce internal consistency on our body of opinions through the examination that the debate provides; where our ideas fail, we have to repair them and yes, maybe, sometimes we chuck the lot away. But that’s an internal process, merely stimulated by the debate; I don’t understand why people would enter the debate with the aim of changing other people’s minds*, but that’s just a reflection of my own approach, I think. I also don’t have believe that, on matters like this that are essentially undecideable, that dialogue between two ‘reasonable’ parties leads to some synthesised approximation to truth. The best we can hope for, it seems to me, is that each side understands the other better and improves the consistency of their own views, or at least is more aware of where the inconsistencies lie.

*Unless there was a political sort of motive, which might be entirely justifiable, like ‘leave me alone, you condemnatory pricks’.

It seems that “philosophical materialism” is a workable simpler definition that directly implies a closed natural universe, and is consistent with methodological materialism.

It’s not a directly explicitly falsifiable theory due to it’s closedness. On the other hand, ideas of supernaturals “dies of a thousand cuts” since every explained observation strengthens the use of the theory. And the idea I presented is a rough sieve which supports the philosophical naturalism theory naturally and falsifiably, without supposing the dualism as such.

To answer accordingly, again, the idea I presented gives much less confidence than we can have about nonexistence of supernaturals. But it’s an easily expressed one; it gives you the limits you asked for.

I am atheist, in other words not a theist, agnosticism seems to me like a cop-out. As an atheist I do not see the need to postulate a supernatural explanation for anything, it is not about “belief” that there is no god, any more than I believe in the existence of tables, they are, they do not require my belief in oder to exist. The universe does not require my belief either, it is.

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Morality.html

Moral sense could be rooted in genes and accumulated experience quite literally shaping our brains, and feelings of moral certitude may have less of a rational basis than many would care to admit. Worse, these neurophysiological differences might make it extremely difficult for for those harboring different moral precepts to even comprehend one another, much less agree upon anything, causing certain conflicts to seem insoluble. The featured researcher, Dr. Greene, speculates that understanding the neurological basis of morality might help people achieve a measure of rational detachment, which could facilitate conflict resolution. Science to the rescue? Maybe not, but I still figure learning about the nature of our sense of right and wrong might possibly be of some assistance when we’re faced with so-called moral dilemmas.

I just asked a similar question here, but my idea is that atheism is indeed compatible with science.

I believe we can make and prove a better theory than yours. We can’t make theories about supernatural phenomena in the absence of observations that helps us define them. We know however that natural phenomena obeys energy and probability conservation laws. Let’s call the remainder anatural phenomena. The anaturals will include all possible supernatural phenomena.

By testing a massive amount of different systems (for example chemical and gravitational ones) one can confirm or falsify “beyond reasonable suspicion” whether anaturals can be observed as breaking conservation laws. If they aren’t, the best theory will be that they don’t exist.

In conclusion, I can’t see why “methodological naturalism” can’t eventually show “ontological materialism’ as a correct theory by observations?! Perhaps you can help me understand if this is wrong.

If this idea is good, it should indeed be possible to put experimental limits on the existance of gods. In fact, we can already amuse ourselves by making an armchair prediction, admittedly with very low sensitivity, since you asked for it.

Television has been around for some time and people watch and presumably report oddities in shows from natural surroundings. Very few has reported and followed up on gross violations of energy conservation in gravity in television frames. When I did a rough calculation I ended up with more than 6.2 sigma certainty that no gods exists to kick around objects or mess with gravity.

There are no gods. At least, that’s my prediction from observations.

I could extend “your thoughts” into the work of others like Brian D.Josephson, but then, I might be playing into hands about which “senility of scientists” would, as if some of our youth espouse on reason, had been overtaken?

Those who lead working models of science, like that used in the Josephson effect, now defunct, thinking wise?

Somewhere these ole folk according to those who have a agenda, missed the “science process” and yet, they offer some evidence to the contrary of that youtfful thinking?

Einstein, likewise?

“Possible” tunneling from other universes? “Atheist indoctrination” about which the irresponsibility is spoken in regards to science?

Okay, I added that last little bit for thought. Just wondering.

Artistically straying, because I was lead by example?:) It’s Cliffords fault. Damn you clifford.

You know that saying, “you are what you eat,” well lets change that around a bit and insert, “food for thought?”

There are some good chefs around who deal with the landscape of “texture surfaces”. Who respect the inherent nature of mining, who posted dangers for us about dealing with making trips into the outback and who do walkabouts.

I don’t want to go off planet here:)

Anyway, as to the “emphemeral qualities of mind,” if held to “matter states” then we would have never ventured into journies “off planet” into non-euclidean realms of thought.

Argue as you might, “this food” changed the substance of those who deal with planet landscapes?

“The earth” is not so round, if you look closer. That’s part of the progression of thinking, beyond the matter states.

I’m hungry.