SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Greg or e who wrote (9755)3/26/2001 3:43:40 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Message 15506345



To: Greg or e who wrote (9755)3/26/2001 3:45:21 PM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
Greg, any system can be internally consistent. The main goal here is to find consistency with experiment and make some predictions. If you have a theory and it can't make predictions, what the hell kind of theory is that?! You might as well believe groceries are delivered to the supermarket by invisible sprites if all you care about is that you can indeed buy groceries at the supermarket.

Mathematics is internally consistent. That doesn't prove it is right, but it does and can make predictions and is therefore is useful. Go ahead, make a prediction that would only happen because of a God-force. Have it happen tomorrow and that I can duplicate the day after. Almost anything will do as long as I can do it too, or it can be consistently repeated.

As I've said, if God cared about houses of worship then acts of God would seemingly produce a bias against such things happening. We talked about this on SGBR and I said porno theaters and churches in similarly shaped building would seem to have different rates of lightning strikes and tornados if God gave one hoot about them. I doubt you could find such a correlation.



To: Greg or e who wrote (9755)3/26/2001 4:43:50 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Of course, the answer is that the universal laws of logic and such are not materially verifiable, but are a product of analyzing our experience. As Descartes, Kant, and Husserl, among others, realized, the ground of science is in the rigorous examination of the object as determined in consciousness. The congruity between reason and the external word became itself, in Descartes, an argument for the existence of God. Kant, however, developed the idea that the world of experience was constructed by consciousness encountering Things- in- themselves, and thus that appearances were formally congruent with reason, whatever may be the case with the Things- in- themselves. This radical disjunction was very unsatisfactory, however, since it made little sense that phenomena did not reveal something about the objects that inspired them, and thus the question of the amenability of objects to be dealt with rationally remained. Husserl dealt with the encounter of the object in consciousness, to discover the principles that govern the encounter more rigorously, and possibly reveal something about the thing itself. This method of rigorous analysis of the interior encounter with things is called phenomenology. The problem is that for Husserl to "work", objects must essentially be objects of consciousness, and yet he never deals with the implications of that, although there is an implied Idealism.

Finally, it makes sense that there be a distinction between object and appearance; that, nevertheless, the object is to a greater or lesser degree revealed through its appearance in consciousness; and that the object is graspable through the structures of consciousness, and therefore "built" to be grasped. This "principle of intelligibility" embodied in things suggests their production from a consciousness that we, in turn, reflect more directly.



To: Greg or e who wrote (9755)3/26/2001 5:50:38 PM
From: thames_sider  Respond to of 82486
 
Check back... you first mentioned and then insisted on universal 'laws' of logic. Not me.
Nor would I ever propose that any validated observation of physics - or cause/effect, or whatever - has existence, meaning or validity outside our universe. OTOH I wouldn't base any rational argument on reliance on anything outside our universe - at best, it's by definition unprovable, in either way.

Which does not prevent prediction - observation - deduction from being a valid logical sequence, BTW. But there's no 'law' to it any more than there is a 'law' saying that red light 'must' have a longer wavelength in a given substrate than green...

Lastly, I wouldn't say love was a state of imbalance... a glorious if unstable harmony, maybe <g>. Still, I wouldn't necessarily base a world-view on the goddess of love - felt by all, outside us all and entirely subjective.
Well...
But entwine me and requite me
At the shrine of Aphrodite
And I'll fall no more the fool to other laws.


<vbg>