| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joseph H" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2005 04:27:16 PM |
| Object: |
The Lineaments of Existence |
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see how energy could have emerged: emerged from what?
It begets matter. I don't know how. The E=MC thing always seems too
pat. Can the creation of matter really be that precise?
On at least one occasion matter spools out to produce the thing we call
universe. Over time this matter condenses or coalesces into planets
etc.
On at least one such planet a replicating entity emerges,needing
sustenance to continue replicating. What is sustenance? Why should
something be designated a food? Is "food" just something that provides
energy to a replicating entity?
Countless replicating entities down the ages honed survival strategies.
Such patterns of behaviour were an intrinsic element of the
replication. Amazing stuff.
Knowledge, so called, didn't arise. Some perception arose over time. I
wouldn't dare surmise what creatures knew - or know.
Eventually a creature emerged who could know the lineaments of
existence. But knowledge first had to overcome error. Sanctified error
dominated perception. Such error was unavoidable - but led to tragedy
and gross inefficiency and the destruction of countless human beings
who glimpsed a truth.
Excuses could be made for error up to the present day. And the cost of
error wasn't too high - if one discounted the destruction and
corruption of millions. But now the species stands or falls as a unity.
The cost of error could be horrific. Global error threatens us all. We
know our situation. We must be allowed use that knowledge. We must not
pander to past erroreous views of existence. We must not indulge
deeply-held nonsense. Life is valuable and preciuous and meaningful
enough not to need to seek meaning elsewhere. The human being has the
capacity to know all the foregoing lineaments of existence and to endow
them with as much meaning and value as we could ever require. we are on
the brink of such an age. We have carved out fundamental freedoms
worldwide. Now indifference on the one hand and an obsession with self
on the other - all allied to greed on a global scale - allows reactive
and regressive forces to hinder our advance. We must fight such forces.
But we must fight them not with some empty formula for freedom or
democracy but with a vast committment to a better life for human
beings.
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
.
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Nov 2005 01:26:11 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 10:16:08 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
I think we're dealing with a rare form of pathology here, an inability
to appreciate another's reality and an undue tolerance for one's own
unreality. .
You described yourself perfectly.
That does not describe me at all because I suffer from no pathology, I
fully appreciate another's reality (I am married successfully, after
all) and I do note have any undue tolerance for my own reality.
It's not a matter of psychological assessment. It is a philosophical
matter entirely.
You adopt a Worldview appropriate to the formal rational system you
intend to use to study a subject. In the case of physics and
existential metaphysics, the appropriate Worldview is Existential
Realism, which includes the fundamental tenets I enumerated on several
occasions in previous posts to alt.philosophy.
If you are unable to adopt that Worldview, you have no business
attempting to do physics or metaphysics, which includes offering
opinions about its legitimacy as a part of philosophy. You are simply
ill-prepared to understand the propositions so your opinions are
invalid.
But not to fret because most people cannot deal with the harsh reality
of Realism. Since you like psychology so much, I can tell you that
Freud claimed that mankind suffered from two fundamental delusions:
1) Santa Claus.
2) Immortality
Most people need a white-bearded patriarch to give then meaning and
purpose - and supply them with the means to stay on the right track.
And most people believe they will never cease to exist.
Those two delusions would be harmless if it weren't for the fact that
throughout recorded history the criminal element, mainly in the form
of politicians and lawyers, have used those delusion to exploit the
masses. Wars are allegedly fought over such matters when in reality
all wars are economic.
The Milgram Experiments confirm these facts of reality. Most people
can't deal with the knowledge that their fellow man is such an idiot
so they shun Realism and anything that goes along with it, like
physics and metaphysics. They adopt one or another form of subjective
Idealism, where basically anything goes if you can cococt it in your
imagination.
Ignorance is indeed bliss, and the ultimate form of ignorance is
ignorance of Reality.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Nov 2005 05:27:46 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 10:16:08 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
I think we're dealing with a rare form of pathology here, an inability
to appreciate another's reality and an undue tolerance for one's own
unreality. .
You described yourself perfectly.
That does not describe me at all because I suffer from no pathology, I
fully appreciate another's reality (I am married successfully, after
all) and I do note have any undue tolerance for my own reality.
It's not a matter of psychological assessment. It is a philosophical
matter entirely.
You adopt a Worldview appropriate to the formal rational system you
intend to use to study a subject. In the case of physics and
existential metaphysics, the appropriate Worldview is Existential
Realism, which includes the fundamental tenets I enumerated on several
occasions in previous posts to alt.philosophy.
To insist that existentalist realism is the (only) appropriate
worldview in the study of physics is itself inapropriate. Many, if not
most, scientists would not consider themselves exist. realists. They
seek knowledge in their subject, full stop. In my case I certainly do
not subscribe to the notion that there are "universals" out there; nor
objective moral rules. We decide rules as we go along.Many rules of the
past would be consdered barbaric now. Until we see ourselves more
objectively, or less erroneously, in the context of our place on the
planet or, indeed, in the universe all our rules are essentially
temporary arrangements.
If you are unable to adopt that Worldview, you have no business
attempting to do physics or metaphysics, which includes offering
opinions about its legitimacy as a part of philosophy. You are simply
ill-prepared to understand the propositions so your opinions are
invalid.
But not to fret because most people cannot deal with the harsh reality
of Realism. Since you like psychology so much, I can tell you that
Freud claimed that mankind suffered from two fundamental delusions:
1) Santa Claus.
2) Immortality
Most people need a white-bearded patriarch to give then meaning and
purpose - and supply them with the means to stay on the right track.
And most people believe they will never cease to exist.
Those two delusions would be harmless if it weren't for the fact that
throughout recorded history the criminal element, mainly in the form
of politicians and lawyers, have used those delusion to exploit the
masses. Wars are allegedly fought over such matters when in reality
all wars are economic.
The Milgram Experiments confirm these facts of reality. Most people
can't deal with the knowledge that their fellow man is such an idiot
so they shun Realism and anything that goes along with it, like
physics and metaphysics. They adopt one or another form of subjective
Idealism, where basically anything goes if you can cococt it in your
imagination.
Ignorance is indeed bliss, and the ultimate form of ignorance is
ignorance of Reality.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 04:02:47 AM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 15:27:46 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
To insist that existentalist realism is the (only) appropriate
worldview in the study of physics is itself inapropriate. Many, if not
most, scientists would not consider themselves exist. realists. They
seek knowledge in their subject, full stop.
They are not be productive physicists. Only physicsts who adopt
Realism are productive. Einstein, Schrodinger and Planck proved that.
Nothing productive came from the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. In
fact it has been pointed out by productive physicists that QM was held
back for 60 years because of Copenhagen.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 11:01:53 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 15:27:46 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
To insist that existentalist realism is the (only) appropriate
worldview in the study of physics is itself inapropriate. Many, if not
most, scientists would not consider themselves exist. realists. They
seek knowledge in their subject, full stop.
They are not be productive physicists. Only physicsts who adopt
Realism are productive. Einstein, Schrodinger and Planck proved that.
Was Darwin an existentialist realist? Newton? To examine and discover
the nature of existence - how things began, how they continued, what
principles underlie the world we observe etc - one requires only
intelligence, patience and the wish/need to undertake such a task. A
personal philosophy might inform or help sustain this effort.
Obviously, a philosophy which least distorts ones perception and
expectations of life is best placed to assist the task. Existentialism
itself might fit the bill, though existentialism laced with some common
feeling for humanity, as opposed to the more severe forms.
Incidentally, you have labelled me a fantasist. Good, I like
challenges. They force me to re-examine my assumptions - something you
might do from time to time. I have looked over my six main assumptions.
Can't really see a decent fantasy among them.
1: We are the bearers of that arrangement of matter that gives rise to
the phenomenon we call "mind". I use the phrase "mind of matter" to aid
serendipity - but the fact seems self-evident enough. No fantasy here.
2: The possession of such a facility confers a huge privilege on us.
We may know the origin, the history and the nature of the universe. It
is not a privilege we will shirk. Currently - for example - you and
everyone else in this thread is engaged in just such a search. I say we
may be "the eyes..of the universe". Again, it is offered as a
felicitous phrase. I would wish that we would take such a role on
board. I think it would give us direction as a species and would
assuage that great wish we have for meaning.
No fantasy there, I think. Error, maybe, but no fantasy.
3: Equally, I think our intelligence will eventually lead us to create
an intelligent global society. I would formulate a principle that all
species live up to their specific abilities. I would also say that
living up to these abilities - i.e. being a cat, or whatever - is built
in to every species, is part of their ongoing package. Living up to our
abilities would, I suggest, involve creating a society commensurate
with these abilities.
No fantasy there, I think.
4: But our progress, as in migration, across the planet was fraught
with complications unknown to any other species. We changed the nature
of our societies endlessly. We changed the sum of our knowledge
continuously. We encountered others of our own species who seemed
entirely different. We had an awareness and a pre-awareness of failure
and disaster unknown to other creatures. We formulated views of reality
based on surmise and speculation. Our 10,000 years of contact were
endlessly fraught. During them we installed reigns of error and terror
on each other. We blocked access to elementary expressions of our
abilities and elementary knowledge of our situation.
5: Now, however, we have rectified much of that. Indeed, we have taken
as our new religion in many parts of the globe the expression of our
self, whatever that is. This was bound to happen. But the vast
outpouring of energy and genius pursuent on freedom has generated new
challenges and new perils ahead. Global warming, for example; likewise,
fuel shortages; likewise, the capacity of a very small zealous minority
to dominate the indifferent many.
6: To counter these perils, and many others, a new vision of
ourselves is required. Why fantasise any more? Why not just see our own
past and discover that we ourselves are enough to believe in. Already
we are engaged in the effort I described above. A global society is in
the making. Millions, indeed billions, are engaged in the effort. The
effort will continue. As I said earlier, this capacity, this wish to
create an appropriate society or mode of existence, is inherent in all
creatures, including us. But a vision of ourselves such as I describe -
a vision of the human being as a unique creature engaged in a vast
circumspection of the universe - would facillitate and foster this
effort.
joseph@humanisation.org
www.humanisation.org
Nothing productive came from the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. In
fact it has been pointed out by productive physicists that QM was held
back for 60 years because of Copenhagen.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 11:44:38 AM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 09:01:53 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
Was Darwin an existentialist realist?
I have no idea nor do I care.
Newton?
Newton I do care about. And yes, he was an existential realist. He
believed that the real objective world exists and that it is subject
to the principles of consistency and causality. How else could he have
constructed Newton's Laws?
To examine and discover
the nature of existence - how things began, how they continued, what
principles underlie the world we observe etc - one requires only
intelligence, patience and the wish/need to undertake such a task.
All formal rational systems of reasoning require a Worldview. You have
oversimplified.
Existentialism
itself might fit the bill, though existentialism laced with some common
feeling for humanity, as opposed to the more severe forms.
I never once used the term "existentialism" in the context of a
Worldview or metaphysics. You are really confused. Existentialism is
not the same as existential.
Incidentally, you have labelled me a fantasist. Good, I like
challenges. They force me to re-examine my assumptions - something you
might do from time to time.
LOL. As a Jesuitical Heathen I have done that so many times I can't
enumerate them. I was once deceived by the siren song of Idealism, and
I eventually rejected it for discussions of the real objective world
because it doesn't work. You cannot suspend the principles of
conssitency and causality if you want to do productive physics or
metaphysics. You can if you want to do mathematics, but then
mathematics is not a science.
I have looked over my six main assumptions.
Can't really see a decent fantasy among them.
1: We are the bearers of that arrangement of matter that gives rise to
the phenomenon we call "mind". I use the phrase "mind of matter" to aid
serendipity - but the fact seems self-evident enough. No fantasy here.
I agree and ***** that it would seem that the matter of which you speak,
namely the brain, is quantum mechanical in operation which means it is
coupled to the Vacuum, which is the source of all matter in the
Universe.
2: The possession of such a facility confers a huge privilege on us.
We may know the origin, the history and the nature of the universe. It
is not a privilege we will shirk. Currently - for example - you and
everyone else in this thread is engaged in just such a search. I say we
may be "the eyes..of the universe". Again, it is offered as a
felicitous phrase. I would wish that we would take such a role on
board. I think it would give us direction as a species and would
assuage that great wish we have for meaning.
No fantasy there, I think. Error, maybe, but no fantasy.
Literally we are "plugged in" to the Universe in a most intimate
manner because of the quantum mechanical coupling of the brain to the
Vacuum..
3: Equally, I think our intelligence will eventually lead us to create
an intelligent global society. I would formulate a principle that all
species live up to their specific abilities. I would also say that
living up to these abilities - i.e. being a cat, or whatever - is built
in to every species, is part of their ongoing package. Living up to our
abilities would, I suggest, involve creating a society commensurate
with these abilities.
No fantasy there, I think.
This is not physics or metaphysics. It is psychology/sociology and
suffers from the principle of the vague theory. It is a fantasy but
since it is irrelevant I do not hold it against you.
So far you are batting 2 for 2.
4: But our progress, as in migration, across the planet was fraught
with complications unknown to any other species. We changed the nature
of our societies endlessly. We changed the sum of our knowledge
continuously. We encountered others of our own species who seemed
entirely different. We had an awareness and a pre-awareness of failure
and disaster unknown to other creatures. We formulated views of reality
based on surmise and speculation. Our 10,000 years of contact were
endlessly fraught. During them we installed reigns of error and terror
on each other. We blocked access to elementary expressions of our
abilities and elementary knowledge of our situation.
More psychology/sociology. Irrelevant to physics/metaphysics. Still 2
for 2.
5: Now, however, we have rectified much of that. Indeed, we have taken
as our new religion in many parts of the globe the expression of our
self, whatever that is. This was bound to happen. But the vast
outpouring of energy and genius pursuent on freedom has generated new
challenges and new perils ahead. Global warming, for example; likewise,
fuel shortages; likewise, the capacity of a very small zealous minority
to dominate the indifferent many.
More psychology/sociology. Irrelevant to physics/metaphysics. Still 2
for 2.
6: To counter these perils, and many others, a new vision of
ourselves is required. Why fantasise any more? Why not just see our own
past and discover that we ourselves are enough to believe in. Already
we are engaged in the effort I described above. A global society is in
the making. Millions, indeed billions, are engaged in the effort. The
effort will continue. As I said earlier, this capacity, this wish to
create an appropriate society or mode of existence, is inherent in all
creatures, including us. But a vision of ourselves such as I describe -
a vision of the human being as a unique creature engaged in a vast
circumspection of the universe - would facillitate and foster this
effort.
More psychology/sociology. Irrelevant to physics/metaphysics. Still 2
for 2.
If your agenda is to get physics/metaphysics to support your
psychological/sociological agenda, you will not succeed.
Physics/metaphysics is based on the Realist Worldview, whereas
psychology/sociology is based on the Idealist Worldview. Those two
Worldviews are incompatible which means you cannot use one to support
the other.
Most arguments in science (which includes metaphysics) are the result
of the participants adopting different Worldviews that conflict with
one another. If you do not start from the same epistemological
assumptions (aka "axioms"), then you are doomed to failure in trying
to find agreement.
You managed to shift from Realist to Idealist in your presentation
above without even realizing it.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 05:17:01 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 09:01:53 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
Was Darwin an existentialist realist?
I have no idea nor do I care.
Newton?
Newton I do care about. And yes, he was an existential realist. He
believed that the real objective world exists and that it is subject
to the principles of consistency and causality. How else could he have
constructed Newton's Laws?
To examine and discover
the nature of existence - how things began, how they continued, what
principles underlie the world we observe etc - one requires only
intelligence, patience and the wish/need to undertake such a task.
All formal rational systems of reasoning require a Worldview. You have
oversimplified.
Existentialism
itself might fit the bill, though existentialism laced with some common
feeling for humanity, as opposed to the more severe forms.
I never once used the term "existentialism" in the context of a
Worldview or metaphysics. You are really confused. Existentialism is
not the same as existential.
Incidentally, you have labelled me a fantasist. Good, I like
challenges. They force me to re-examine my assumptions - something you
might do from time to time.
LOL. As a Jesuitical Heathen I have done that so many times I can't
enumerate them. I was once deceived by the siren song of Idealism, and
I eventually rejected it for discussions of the real objective world
because it doesn't work. You cannot suspend the principles of
conssitency and causality if you want to do productive physics or
metaphysics. You can if you want to do mathematics, but then
mathematics is not a science.
I have looked over my six main assumptions.
Can't really see a decent fantasy among them.
1: We are the bearers of that arrangement of matter that gives rise to
the phenomenon we call "mind". I use the phrase "mind of matter" to aid
serendipity - but the fact seems self-evident enough. No fantasy here.
I agree and ***** that it would seem that the matter of which you speak,
namely the brain, is quantum mechanical in operation which means it is
coupled to the Vacuum, which is the source of all matter in the
Universe.
2: The possession of such a facility confers a huge privilege on us.
We may know the origin, the history and the nature of the universe. It
is not a privilege we will shirk. Currently - for example - you and
everyone else in this thread is engaged in just such a search. I say we
may be "the eyes..of the universe". Again, it is offered as a
felicitous phrase. I would wish that we would take such a role on
board. I think it would give us direction as a species and would
assuage that great wish we have for meaning.
No fantasy there, I think. Error, maybe, but no fantasy.
Literally we are "plugged in" to the Universe in a most intimate
manner because of the quantum mechanical coupling of the brain to the
Vacuum..
3: Equally, I think our intelligence will eventually lead us to create
an intelligent global society. I would formulate a principle that all
species live up to their specific abilities. I would also say that
living up to these abilities - i.e. being a cat, or whatever - is built
in to every species, is part of their ongoing package. Living up to our
abilities would, I suggest, involve creating a society commensurate
with these abilities.
No fantasy there, I think.
This is not physics or metaphysics. It is psychology/sociology and
suffers from the principle of the vague theory. It is a fantasy but
since it is irrelevant I do not hold it against you.
So far you are batting 2 for 2.
4: But our progress, as in migration, across the planet was fraught
with complications unknown to any other species. We changed the nature
of our societies endlessly. We changed the sum of our knowledge
continuously. We encountered others of our own species who seemed
entirely different. We had an awareness and a pre-awareness of failure
and disaster unknown to other creatures. We formulated views of reality
based on surmise and speculation. Our 10,000 years of contact were
endlessly fraught. During them we installed reigns of error and terror
on each other. We blocked access to elementary expressions of our
abilities and elementary knowledge of our situation.
More psychology/sociology. Irrelevant to physics/metaphysics. Still 2
for 2.
5: Now, however, we have rectified much of that. Indeed, we have taken
as our new religion in many parts of the globe the expression of our
self, whatever that is. This was bound to happen. But the vast
outpouring of energy and genius pursuent on freedom has generated new
challenges and new perils ahead. Global warming, for example; likewise,
fuel shortages; likewise, the capacity of a very small zealous minority
to dominate the indifferent many.
More psychology/sociology. Irrelevant to physics/metaphysics. Still 2
for 2.
6: To counter these perils, and many others, a new vision of
ourselves is required. Why fantasise any more? Why not just see our own
past and discover that we ourselves are enough to believe in. Already
we are engaged in the effort I described above. A global society is in
the making. Millions, indeed billions, are engaged in the effort. The
effort will continue. As I said earlier, this capacity, this wish to
create an appropriate society or mode of existence, is inherent in all
creatures, including us. But a vision of ourselves such as I describe -
a vision of the human being as a unique creature engaged in a vast
circumspection of the universe - would facillitate and foster this
effort.
More psychology/sociology. Irrelevant to physics/metaphysics. Still 2
for 2.
If your agenda is to get physics/metaphysics to support your
psychological/sociological agenda, you will not succeed.
Physics/metaphysics is based on the Realist Worldview, whereas
psychology/sociology is based on the Idealist Worldview. Those two
Worldviews are incompatible which means you cannot use one to support
the other.
Most arguments in science (which includes metaphysics) are the result
of the participants adopting different Worldviews that conflict with
one another. If you do not start from the same epistemological
assumptions (aka "axioms"), then you are doomed to failure in trying
to find agreement.
You managed to shift from Realist to Idealist in your presentation
above without even realizing it.
Unfortunately, I don't have time now and won't for the next 3, 4 days
to answer your posting. I would just say this: It is surely cavalier
and arbitrary to insist that psychology/ sociology is irrelevant to any
discussion as to how human society might alter or be transformed in the
future. Equally, it is cavalier to dismiss Darwin. He discovered a
truth about life that is central to any discussion about life. Also,
once again you set up this notion of Worldview. You might explain why a
worldview is essential to any discussion of this nature.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
01 Dec 2005 02:34:46 AM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 15:17:01 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
It is surely cavalier
and arbitrary to insist that psychology/ sociology is irrelevant to any
discussion as to how human society might alter or be transformed in the
future.
I did not say that. I said that psychology/sociology were irrelevant
to a discussion of physics/metaphysics.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
01 Dec 2005 11:23:09 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 09:01:53 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
Was Darwin an existentialist realist?
I have no idea nor do I care.
It seems as if we are talking about different things. My concern is
human society, its history, its pesent and its future. It is not an
insignificant subject. Your professed concerns are physics and
metaphysics - though you seem to regard these as so closely aligned as
to be one. Your debating tactic is unique, to say the least: you enter
the lists willingly and then withdraw to your fastness - of knowledge -
whenever debate arises about the nature of society. Physics and society
are not completely separate. Human society has been directed for
millennia by theories and ideas, usually fallacious, about the nature
of existence. Physics, the study of the universe, its origin,
development and its component parts, has the potential to introduce
knowledge into this scenario. But not just physics. Darwin too;
sociology, history, philosophy etc. All play a part in constructing a
view of existence. To a lessor or greater degree all are prone to
error, but some far more so than others. But to dismiss everything but
physics and metaphysics is to leave you solely in a realm of knowledge.
Also, why this need for a Worldview? If debate becomes cavalier and
whimsical then there is no debate. Our prime need as a species is to
create a mode of thought which most assists our progress on the planet.
To wash your hands of that in the guise of some Olympian concern with
physics and metaphysics only is hardly productive.
Newton?
Newton I do care about. And yes, he was an existential realist. He
believed that the real objective world exists and that it is subject
to the principles of consistency and causality. How else could he have
constructed Newton's Laws?
To examine and discover
the nature of existence - how things began, how they continued, what
principles underlie the world we observe etc - one requires only
intelligence, patience and the wish/need to undertake such a task.
All formal rational systems of reasoning require a Worldview. You have
oversimplified.
Existentialism
itself might fit the bill, though existentialism laced with some common
feeling for humanity, as opposed to the more severe forms.
I never once used the term "existentialism" in the context of a
Worldview or metaphysics. You are really confused. Existentialism is
not the same as existential.
Incidentally, you have labelled me a fantasist. Good, I like
challenges. They force me to re-examine my assumptions - something you
might do from time to time.
LOL. As a Jesuitical Heathen I have done that so many times I can't
enumerate them. I was once deceived by the siren song of Idealism, and
I eventually rejected it for discussions of the real objective world
because it doesn't work. You cannot suspend the principles of
conssitency and causality if you want to do productive physics or
metaphysics. You can if you want to do mathematics, but then
mathematics is not a science.
I have looked over my six main assumptions.
Can't really see a decent fantasy among them.
1: We are the bearers of that arrangement of matter that gives rise to
the phenomenon we call "mind". I use the phrase "mind of matter" to aid
serendipity - but the fact seems self-evident enough. No fantasy here.
I agree and ***** that it would seem that the matter of which you speak,
namely the brain, is quantum mechanical in operation which means it is
coupled to the Vacuum, which is the source of all matter in the
Universe.
2: The possession of such a facility confers a huge privilege on us.
We may know the origin, the history and the nature of the universe. It
is not a privilege we will shirk. Currently - for example - you and
everyone else in this thread is engaged in just such a search. I say we
may be "the eyes..of the universe". Again, it is offered as a
felicitous phrase. I would wish that we would take such a role on
board. I think it would give us direction as a species and would
assuage that great wish we have for meaning.
No fantasy there, I think. Error, maybe, but no fantasy.
Literally we are "plugged in" to the Universe in a most intimate
manner because of the quantum mechanical coupling of the brain to the
Vacuum..
3: Equally, I think our intelligence will eventually lead us to create
an intelligent global society. I would formulate a principle that all
species live up to their specific abilities. I would also say that
living up to these abilities - i.e. being a cat, or whatever - is built
in to every species, is part of their ongoing package. Living up to our
abilities would, I suggest, involve creating a society commensurate
with these abilities.
No fantasy there, I think.
This is not physics or metaphysics. It is psychology/sociology and
suffers from the principle of the vague theory. It is a fantasy but
since it is irrelevant I do not hold it against you.
So far you are batting 2 for 2.
4: But our progress, as in migration, across the planet was fraught
with complications unknown to any other species. We changed the nature
of our societies endlessly. We changed the sum of our knowledge
continuously. We encountered others of our own species who seemed
entirely different. We had an awareness and a pre-awareness of failure
and disaster unknown to other creatures. We formulated views of reality
based on surmise and speculation. Our 10,000 years of contact were
endlessly fraught. During them we installed reigns of error and terror
on each other. We blocked access to elementary expressions of our
abilities and elementary knowledge of our situation.
More psychology/sociology. Irrelevant to physics/metaphysics. Still 2
for 2.
5: Now, however, we have rectified much of that. Indeed, we have taken
as our new religion in many parts of the globe the expression of our
self, whatever that is. This was bound to happen. But the vast
outpouring of energy and genius pursuent on freedom has generated new
challenges and new perils ahead. Global warming, for example; likewise,
fuel shortages; likewise, the capacity of a very small zealous minority
to dominate the indifferent many.
More psychology/sociology. Irrelevant to physics/metaphysics. Still 2
for 2.
6: To counter these perils, and many others, a new vision of
ourselves is required. Why fantasise any more? Why not just see our own
past and discover that we ourselves are enough to believe in. Already
we are engaged in the effort I described above. A global society is in
the making. Millions, indeed billions, are engaged in the effort. The
effort will continue. As I said earlier, this capacity, this wish to
create an appropriate society or mode of existence, is inherent in all
creatures, including us. But a vision of ourselves such as I describe -
a vision of the human being as a unique creature engaged in a vast
circumspection of the universe - would facillitate and foster this
effort.
More psychology/sociology. Irrelevant to physics/metaphysics. Still 2
for 2.
If your agenda is to get physics/metaphysics to support your
psychological/sociological agenda, you will not succeed.
Physics/metaphysics is based on the Realist Worldview, whereas
psychology/sociology is based on the Idealist Worldview. Those two
Worldviews are incompatible which means you cannot use one to support
the other.
Most arguments in science (which includes metaphysics) are the result
of the participants adopting different Worldviews that conflict with
one another. If you do not start from the same epistemological
assumptions (aka "axioms"), then you are doomed to failure in trying
to find agreement.
You managed to shift from Realist to Idealist in your presentation
above without even realizing it.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 01:39:36 PM |
|
|
In message <438de15b.166090593@news-server.houston.rr.com>, Bob
<spam@uce.gov> writes
Newton I do care about. And yes, he was an existential realist. He
believed that the real objective world exists and that it is subject to
the principles of consistency and causality. How else could he have
constructed Newton's Laws?
Joseph, if you deign to reply to this crap, I trust you will point out
that Newton came some two centuries before existentialism, and that his
"realism" extended to acceptance of Genesis' version of the creation.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
01 Dec 2005 02:15:59 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:39:36 +0000, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Newton I do care about. And yes, he was an existential realist. He
believed that the real objective world exists and that it is subject to
the principles of consistency and causality. How else could he have
constructed Newton's Laws?
Joseph, if you deign to reply to this crap, I trust you will point out
that Newton came some two centuries before existentialism,
I never used the word "existentialism" in any discussion about
Existential Metaphysics.
Existential is not the same as existentialism.
Learn to read.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 05:11:34 PM |
|
|
ralph wrote:
In message <438de15b.166090593@news-server.houston.rr.com>, Bob
<spam@uce.gov> writes
Newton I do care about. And yes, he was an existential realist. He
believed that the real objective world exists and that it is subject to
the principles of consistency and causality. How else could he have
constructed Newton's Laws?
Joseph, if you deign to reply to this crap, I trust you will point out
that Newton came some two centuries before existentialism, and that his
"realism" extended to acceptance of Genesis' version of the creation.
Well, you see, our mutual friend espies a distinction between
existentialism and existential realism. I have too much respect for his
knowledge to insist that he is wrong. Maybe he might enlighten us on
this topic. Eh, Robert? Are you hearing me?
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
01 Dec 2005 02:19:14 AM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 15:11:34 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
Well, you see, our mutual friend espies a distinction between
existentialism and existential realism. I have too much respect for his
knowledge to insist that he is wrong. Maybe he might enlighten us on
this topic. Eh, Robert? Are you hearing me?
Existentialism is a psychology masquerading as philosophy. Sartres,
the famous French existentialist, said Existentialism is
Phenomonological Psychoanalysis.
Existential is a substitute for Ontological, that is, pertaining to
Being, Existence.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Nov 2005 06:32:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:07:14 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If under QM the physical universe can be
considered to be comprised of interacting particles (quantized
entities, whether counted as mass, energy, whatever) and there are
*any* particles that do not operate by deterministic laws,
Your major premise is fatally flawed. The entire Universe operates by
fully deterministic laws. Just because certain quantities are
intrinsically unknowable does not mean the Universe is
nondeterministic.
and there
are no particles in the universe that are not affected by those
particles, then the universe's entire history and future, and the
history and future of every particle, are indeterminate. How do I
avoid this conclusion?
The conclusion is wrong because the premise it is based on is wrong.
After all those posts showing you what was the correct way to think
about this issue of determinism, you have forgotten already. We're
going backwards.
It is impossible to explain physics and metaphysics to people who have
never studied physics at the graduate level. Science requires adopting
the Worldview of Existential Realism, something that people cannot do
if they have not been trained to do it by studying physics and
metaphysics. Even most so-called "physicists" who have attended grad
school and gotten a Ph.D. never grasp the central truths of
metaphysics. But then they are not productive physicists anyway.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Nov 2005 09:41:40 AM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:07:14 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If under QM the physical universe can be
considered to be comprised of interacting particles (quantized
entities, whether counted as mass, energy, whatever) and there are
*any* particles that do not operate by deterministic laws,
Your major premise is fatally flawed. The entire Universe operates by
fully deterministic laws. Just because certain quantities are
intrinsically unknowable does not mean the Universe is
nondeterministic.
First, I believe we have nothing to say about how the universe
operates, I believe we can only speak to how the universe can be
considered to operate. That is how I framed my statement and how I try
to frame my statements. If we say that a quantitative value of some
parameter of the universe is intrinsically unknowable and we say that
the universe operates by fully deterministic laws, I submit that the
second of these claims is unwarranted. This is not to say that it is
false or is to be assumed false; that would depend on other
information. But i believe that in this situation, we have to withhold
belief that it is true.
and there
are no particles in the universe that are not affected by those
particles, then the universe's entire history and future, and the
history and future of every particle, are indeterminate. How do I
avoid this conclusion?
The conclusion is wrong because the premise it is based on is wrong.
After all those posts showing you what was the correct way to think
about this issue of determinism, you have forgotten already. We're
going backwards.
It is impossible to explain physics and metaphysics to people who have
never studied physics at the graduate level. Science requires adopting
the Worldview of Existential Realism, something that people cannot do
if they have not been trained to do it by studying physics and
metaphysics. Even most so-called "physicists" who have attended grad
school and gotten a Ph.D. never grasp the central truths of
metaphysics. But then they are not productive physicists anyway.
Science does not require a metaphysical commitment; it requires only a
methodological commitment.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seeker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Nov 2005 09:16:23 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote
spam@uce.gov (Bob) said:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:07:14 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If under QM the physical universe can be
considered to be comprised of interacting particles (quantized
entities, whether counted as mass, energy, whatever) and there are
*any* particles that do not operate by deterministic laws,
Your major premise is fatally flawed. The entire Universe operates by
fully deterministic laws. Just because certain quantities are
intrinsically unknowable does not mean the Universe is
nondeterministic.
First, I believe we have nothing to say about how the universe
operates,
Yes, but you forget, you aren't Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Nov 2005 11:05:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:16:23 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
First, I believe we have nothing to say about how the universe
operates,
Yes, but you forget, you aren't Bob
Unjustified ad hom noted.
You have run out of constructive things to say, so you have to resort
to ad homs to participate.
Bad boy/girl.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Nov 2005 10:35:34 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:41:40 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
First, I believe we have nothing to say about how the universe
operates, I believe we can only speak to how the universe can be
considered to operate.
That is not the way a productive physicist considers his work.
You diehard Idealists are mindblocked.
You have an old grandfather clock with the weights and pendulum and
the rest all in working order. You do not know how it operates so you
analyze its behavior. You notice patterns, like the weights fall, the
pendulum goes back and forth, the escapement mechanism results in
rotational motion of the hands of the clock thru interconnected gears,
once each hour a hammer is cocked and released to strike a gong and
this repeats for the same number of times as the number that the
smaller hand is pointing to. And so on.
You formulate a set of rules which you call the "Laws of the Clock".
These laws are descriptive of the behavior of the clock. They are
epistemological.
But they are more: They also specify the operation of the clock. The
clock behaves the way it does because it obeys the Laws of the Clock.
These laws are embedded in the very operation of the clock because
that is how the clock is made to operate, with the various parts like
weights, pendulum, gears and all. These Laws of the Clock are
ontological.
The planets rotate around the sun in (nearly) elliptical orbits
because they obey the laws of physics, in particular Newton's Laws.
Those laws are embedded in the operation of the solar system.
The reason the planets behave that way is because force is
proportional to mass times acceleration. That is not a mere
description - it is an ontological proscription.
The planets have mass and the planets are accelerating. That is how
they behave in orbit. The reason they are behaving in that manner is
because they experience a force of attraction from the sun, and
because their mass times acceleration is equal to that force. That is
ontological.
That is not a mere description - that is how they solar system
operates dynamically. Mass and acceleration are properties of the
planets and sun, the force of attraction is a property of the solar
system and the specific motion of the planets, the elliptical motion,
is a result of the laws of physics regarding those properties. They
are substantial properties, and the laws of physics are ontological.
If you understand this, then you will understand what I have been
trying to get across to you and the others. If this does not bring
about an intuitive understanding, then you are physics-impaired and I
cannot do anything to change it.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seeker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Nov 2005 09:20:45 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:41:40 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
First, I believe we have nothing to say about how the universe
operates, I believe we can only speak to how the universe can be
considered to operate.
That is not the way a productive physicist considers his work.
You diehard Idealists are mindblocked.
You have an old grandfather clock with the weights and pendulum and
the rest all in working order. You do not know how it operates so you
analyze its behavior. You notice patterns, like the weights fall, the
pendulum goes back and forth, the escapement mechanism results in
rotational motion of the hands of the clock thru interconnected gears,
once each hour a hammer is cocked and released to strike a gong and
this repeats for the same number of times as the number that the
smaller hand is pointing to. And so on.
You formulate a set of rules which you call the "Laws of the Clock".
These laws are descriptive of the behavior of the clock. They are
epistemological.
But they are more: They also specify the operation of the clock. The
clock behaves the way it does because it obeys the Laws of the Clock.
These laws are embedded in the very operation of the clock because
that is how the clock is made to operate, with the various parts like
weights, pendulum, gears and all. These Laws of the Clock are
ontological.
The planets rotate around the sun in (nearly) elliptical orbits
because they obey the laws of physics, in particular Newton's Laws.
Those laws are embedded in the operation of the solar system.
The reason the planets behave that way is because force is
proportional to mass times acceleration. That is not a mere
description - it is an ontological proscription.
The planets have mass and the planets are accelerating. That is how
they behave in orbit. The reason they are behaving in that manner is
because they experience a force of attraction from the sun, and
because their mass times acceleration is equal to that force. That is
ontological.
That is not a mere description - that is how they solar system
operates dynamically. Mass and acceleration are properties of the
planets and sun, the force of attraction is a property of the solar
system and the specific motion of the planets, the elliptical motion,
is a result of the laws of physics regarding those properties. They
are substantial properties, and the laws of physics are ontological.
If you understand this, then you will understand what I have been
trying to get across to you and the others. If this does not bring
about an intuitive understanding, then you are physics-impaired and I
cannot do anything to change it.
You are describing forces within the solar system within the universe, they
tell us nothing about the source of the universe. You could as well have
used an example like a child's ball or a spinning object.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Nov 2005 11:58:56 AM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:41:40 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
First, I believe we have nothing to say about how the universe
operates, I believe we can only speak to how the universe can be
considered to operate.
That is not the way a productive physicist considers his work.
You diehard Idealists are mindblocked.
I really think that if you insist on pigeonholing me for whatever
reason -- perhaps it is easier to criticize a stereotype -- you would
be better off putting me into the empiricist category. When you
criticize idealism, I say, so what?
Don't have coffee in your mouth when you read my next replies or you
may have to windex your screen.
You have an old grandfather clock with the weights and pendulum and
the rest all in working order. You do not know how it operates so you
analyze its behavior. You notice patterns, like the weights fall, the
pendulum goes back and forth, the escapement mechanism results in
rotational motion of the hands of the clock thru interconnected gears,
once each hour a hammer is cocked and released to strike a gong and
this repeats for the same number of times as the number that the
smaller hand is pointing to. And so on.
You formulate a set of rules which you call the "Laws of the Clock".
These laws are descriptive of the behavior of the clock. They are
epistemological.
These laws are not descriptive of the "behavior" of the clock. They
are, if accurate, descriptive of future and past physical states of
the clock. How the clock gets from one state to the next is not
addressed by the laws, on a metaphysical level. It might be that
between observations, a demon replaces the clock with one that is
identical except for the predicted changes,. The metaphysics are NOT
addressed by construction of the rules of operation.
But they are more: They also specify the operation of the clock. The
clock behaves the way it does because it obeys the Laws of the Clock.
These laws are embedded in the very operation of the clock because
that is how the clock is made to operate, with the various parts like
weights, pendulum, gears and all. These Laws of the Clock are
ontological.
That is not justified by the construction of algorithms that predict
future or past states of the clock. As I said, the ontology might be
something quite different. It is inaccessible.
The planets rotate around the sun in (nearly) elliptical orbits
because they obey the laws of physics, in particular Newton's Laws.
Those laws are embedded in the operation of the solar system.
The reason the planets behave that way is because force is
proportional to mass times acceleration. That is not a mere
description - it is an ontological proscription.
Angels guide them in such a way.
The planets have mass and the planets are accelerating. That is how
they behave in orbit. The reason they are behaving in that manner is
because they experience a force of attraction from the sun, and
because their mass times acceleration is equal to that force. That is
ontological.
It is not a justified ontology.
That is not a mere description - that is how they solar system
operates dynamically. Mass and acceleration are properties of the
planets and sun, the force of attraction is a property of the solar
system and the specific motion of the planets, the elliptical motion,
is a result of the laws of physics regarding those properties. They
are substantial properties, and the laws of physics are ontological.
If you understand this, then you will understand what I have been
trying to get across to you and the others. If this does not bring
about an intuitive understanding, then you are physics-impaired and I
cannot do anything to change it.
You are metaphysics-impaired and there is nothing I can do to change
it, but that's OK.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Nov 2005 07:20:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:58:56 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
I really think that if you insist on pigeonholing me for whatever
reason -- perhaps it is easier to criticize a stereotype -- you would
be better off putting me into the empiricist category. When you
criticize idealism, I say, so what?
Your notion of the laws of physics is epistemological, which comes
from adopting the Idealist Worldview. All that really says is that you
treat the laws of physics conceptually, subjectively, mentally.
My notion of the laws of physics is that they are epistemological - I
never denied that - but more importantly they are real, objective
rules of behavior that determine the way the Universe works - they are
ontological.
F = ma is embedded in matter just like gears are embedded in a clock.
The Law of Gears determines the behavior of a clock and the laws of
physics determine the behavior of the Universe.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Nov 2005 01:17:37 AM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:58:56 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
I really think that if you insist on pigeonholing me for whatever
reason -- perhaps it is easier to criticize a stereotype -- you would
be better off putting me into the empiricist category. When you
criticize idealism, I say, so what?
Your notion of the laws of physics is epistemological, which comes
from adopting the Idealist Worldview. All that really says is that you
treat the laws of physics conceptually, subjectively, mentally.
My notion of the laws of physics is that the behavior of a thing is
determined by the properties and the arrangement of its parts. We
conceptualize the laws that describe its behavior.
My notion of the laws of physics is that they are epistemological - I
never denied that - but more importantly they are real, objective
rules of behavior that determine the way the Universe works - they are
ontological.
F = ma is embedded in matter just like gears are embedded in a clock.
The Law of Gears determines the behavior of a clock and the laws of
physics determine the behavior of the Universe.
Under my interpretation, the properties and arrangement of the parts
of a clock determine its behavior, and the same goes for everything
else.
But the laws are just our concepts of what the behavior seems to be,
especially, the math that best describes the relationship between its
behavior and the properties and arrangements of its parts. THe
behavior, properties, and arrangements are what have real existence.
The laws are our abstractions from them.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Nov 2005 12:35:32 PM |
|
|
In message <u08lo1pur07it9kjogkt4g7hu3rlb2401g@4ax.com>, Jim07D5
<Jim07D5@nospam.net> writes
Under my interpretation, the properties and arrangement of the parts of
a clock determine its behavior, and the same goes for everything else.
But the laws are just our concepts of what the behavior seems to be,
especially, the math that best describes the relationship between its
behavior and the properties and arrangements of its parts. THe
behavior, properties, and arrangements are what have real existence.
The laws are our abstractions from them.
Well, of course you are right, Jim.
But I doubt that you will convince "physicist" spam.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Nov 2005 06:40:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:35:32 +0000, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
But I doubt that you will convince "physicist" spam.
Another retard.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Nov 2005 11:04:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:17:37 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
My notion of the laws of physics is that the behavior of a thing is
determined by the properties and the arrangement of its parts. We
conceptualize the laws that describe its behavior.
We also state the very laws that cause the behavior. You said "the
behavior of a thing is determined by the properties and arrangement of
its parts." I fully agree. I also claim that the laws of physics are
those "properties and arrangements".
If you agree that an essential component of a grandfather clock as I
specified is a swinging pendulum, then the law that states that a
swinging pendulum is what causes the clock to keep time is an
ontological statement.
Newton's Second Law, namely, F = ma, is not just a description of
classical dynamics, it is a law of classical dynamics. Massive objects
move because the force applied to them results in an acceleration
according to that law. Force, mass and acceleration are all properties
of dynamical objects.
"My notion of the laws of physics is that the behavior of a dynamical
object is determined by the properties of force, mass and acceleration
according to F = ma".
That's your exact statement with Newton's Second Law embedded in it.
Dynamical objects are subject to the laws of physics because those
laws are embedded in the objects' very nature. Massive objects behave
according to F = ma because that is their nature.
My notion of the laws of physics is that they are epistemological - I
never denied that - but more importantly they are real, objective
rules of behavior that determine the way the Universe works - they are
ontological.
F = ma is embedded in matter just like gears are embedded in a clock.
The Law of Gears determines the behavior of a clock and the laws of
physics determine the behavior of the Universe.
Under my interpretation, the properties and arrangement of the parts
of a clock determine its behavior, and the same goes for everything
else.
The Laws of Clock are a statement of those properties and
arrangements. The clock operation is governed by those laws because
they are the properties and arrangements.
But the laws are just our concepts of what the behavior seems to be,
especially, the math that best describes the relationship between its
behavior and the properties and arrangements of its parts.
You insist that any verbalization of the laws of physics are
automatically conceptual and not ontological. That is incorrect
thinking.
The behavior, properties, and arrangements are what have real existence.
The laws are our abstractions from them.
The laws of physics are embedded in the very nature of the Universe.
They are not mere abstractions.
If I told you that the Law of Pendulum is to swing back and forth
periodically, would that not be identical to tje "behavior, properties
and arrangements" of a pendulum?
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Nov 2005 12:31:30 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:17:37 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
My notion of the laws of physics is that the behavior of a thing is
determined by the properties and the arrangement of its parts. We
conceptualize the laws that describe its behavior.
We also state the very laws that cause the behavior. You said "the
behavior of a thing is determined by the properties and arrangement of
its parts." I fully agree. I also claim that the laws of physics are
those "properties and arrangements".
You might want to read to the end before replying because my replies
here are all in the same vein.
The so-called laws of physics are the equations what describe the
relation of the behavior to the properties and arrangements. Equations
do not cause things.
If you agree that an essential component of a grandfather clock as I
specified is a swinging pendulum, then the law that states that a
swinging pendulum is what causes the clock to keep time is an
ontological statement.
I don't believe it is an accurate ontological statement because I do
not believe it makes sense to say that laws cause things. The
equations for motion or other actions have no causal role.
Newton's Second Law, namely, F = ma, is not just a description of
classical dynamics, it is a law of classical dynamics. Massive objects
move because the force applied to them results in an acceleration
according to that law. Force, mass and acceleration are all properties
of dynamical objects.
The equation F=ma does not cause anything.
"My notion of the laws of physics is that the behavior of a dynamical
object is determined by the properties of force, mass and acceleration
according to F = ma".
That's your exact statement with Newton's Second Law embedded in it.
Dynamical objects are subject to the laws of physics because those
laws are embedded in the objects' very nature. Massive objects behave
according to F = ma because that is their nature.
I will tiptoe around the word "nature" used in this sense.
My notion of the laws of physics is that they are epistemological - I
never denied that - but more importantly they are real, objective
rules of behavior that determine the way the Universe works - they are
ontological.
F = ma is embedded in matter just like gears are embedded in a clock.
The Law of Gears determines the behavior of a clock and the laws of
physics determine the behavior of the Universe.
Under my interpretation, the properties and arrangement of the parts
of a clock determine its behavior, and the same goes for everything
else.
The Laws of Clock are a statement of those properties and
arrangements. The clock operation is governed by those laws because
they are the properties and arrangements.
See below.
But the laws are just our concepts of what the behavior seems to be,
especially, the math that best describes the relationship between its
behavior and the properties and arrangements of its parts.
You insist that any verbalization of the laws of physics are
automatically conceptual and not ontological. That is incorrect
thinking.
What I insist on is avoiding the notion of governance. This does not
mean that I am going to be a self-appointed sheriff of the
terminology, but there are a whole raft of terms that imply
governance, and those who are not careful will find themselves falling
into an unwarranted line of thought. I only suggest that you not do
that.
I believe that the temptation to build a metaphysical superstructure
upon physics is a result of yielding to unwarranted implications of
the terminology represented by the word "law" which goes back to "to
lay down" but also by such words are "regulate" and "regularity"
which go back to the Latin for "king". I also believe that the
terminology, and therefore, the temptation, are vestiges of pre-modern
theistic/animistic attitudes toward the natural world.
The behavior, properties, and arrangements are what have real existence.
The laws are our abstractions from them.
The laws of physics are embedded in the very nature of the Universe.
They are not mere abstractions.
If I told you that the Law of Pendulum is to swing back and forth
periodically, would that not be identical to tje "behavior, properties
and arrangements" of a pendulum?
Looking at:
http://www.myphysicslab.com/pendulum1.html
The "law of Pendulum" is nothing more than the "equation of motion for
the pendulum". Equations do not cause, prescribe, or govern. THey
describe.
If we got away from "law" and used "equation" it might help.
Substitute "equation" for "law" and see how it works.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Nov 2005 06:40:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:31:30 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
The so-called laws of physics are the equations what describe the
relation of the behavior to the properties and arrangements. Equations
do not cause things.
The laws of physics are not the equations. Equations do cause
predictions.
Imagine a man 7'2" tall who hits his head on the door opening which is
only 7' high. I tell you that I have this Law of Tall Man, which
states that the man hits his head because he is taller than the
opening.
That law is embedded in the propeties and arrangements of the man-door
system. The behavior of the man-door system is governed by that law.
The reason he hits his head is he is taller than the door opening.
That's what my laws states.
I don't believe it is an accurate ontological statement because I do
not believe it makes sense to say that laws cause things. The
equations for motion or other actions have no causal role.
The equations are not the law. They are part of the law but they are
not the law.
Newton's Second Law, namely, F = ma, is not just a description of
classical dynamics, it is a law of classical dynamics. Massive objects
move because the force applied to them results in an acceleration
according to that law. Force, mass and acceleration are all properties
of dynamical objects.
The equation F=ma does not cause anything.
I did not mean to imply that the equation itself caused anything. I
was trying to say, in the most economical way possible, that it is the
relationship between a force on the one hand and a mass times its
acceleration on the other hand that determines the behavior.
It is the relationship, what you have been calling the properties and
arrangements, that cause the behavior. Those properties and
arrangements are specified by the law.
What I insist on is avoiding the notion of governance.
Which is to say that you insist on avoiding the ontological reality of
the real objective world. As long as the world is a concept you are
free to interpret those concepts to suit whatever agenda you choose.
But for a realist the real objective world prohibits concocting
agendas that violate this governance.
there are a whole raft of terms that imply
governance, and those who are not careful will find themselves falling
into an unwarranted line of thought. I only suggest that you not do
that.
As a Realist, a physicist and an existen | | | | | | | | | |
