Existential Time

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

prothero
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 08:32 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;163690 wrote:
Historical footnote: the ancients and medievals all believed that the planets and starts occupied a realm of changeless perfection, the so-called 'superlunary sphere' which in many minds was heaven itself. The discovery of things that changed in this sphere, such as supernova, caused severe consternation. Even though this model came under pressure from the heliocentric view, Kepler himself was convinced that the orbit of the planets was defined by the Platonic solids. Then of course it gradually dawned on mankind that the superlunerary sphere is not a perfect world of changeless classical perfection at all, but mainly unthinkably enormous distances inhabited mostly by lifeless matter. So the great medieval sythensis and the Great Chain of Being came crashing down to be replaced by the lifeless mechanistic system of Descartes and Galileo.And here we all are.:bigsmile:
Of course one could just have abandoned the notion of God as eternal changless perfection and substituted the immanent god in relationship to creation and the world and avoided some of the relgious consequences.

The division between life and no life is somewhat artificial.
The division between mind and no mind is somewhat artificial.

One can then infer that (mind and life) are Illusions in a cold, lifeless, deterministic, materialistic machine like world
or
One can infer that the world itself is full of life and mind like properties

I choose the latter view: that the universe is more of an organism than a machine and is perceptive, responsive, striving and enchanted to the core.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 08:38 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;163610 wrote:
I agree. I don't see how anyone truly lives without these notions.



Truly lives, or just lives? And does one simply have to have these notions, or need these notions also be true? (I expect to hear that it does not matter). I suppose that what you and Prothero say about these notions, that they are essential to living (or is it "truly living") many people say about the notion of God. So, are those without the notion of God, living (or truly living)? And, if that is a discardable notion, why not the notion of free will? Which many profess to discard (by the way). It may be that (in the old refrain)that one man's essential to life notion is another's superstition.
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 08:43 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;163702 wrote:
, why not the notion of free will? Which many profess to discard (by the way). .
People profess lots of things which their behavior belies. I can not imagine anyone who does not deliberate about their perceived choices and then believe that it makes a difference to the future what action they perform.
Free will as the ability to do otherwise not as actions without causes.

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 07:49 PM ----------

kennethamy;163696 wrote:
So small letter truths are what, chopped liver? It is not important that Mars is the fourth planet? How about the second law of thermodynamics? How does that truth rank in the scale of importance? Is that not knowledge (or is it Knowledge) either? I was under the impression that Plato thought that a justified true belief was knowledge. By the way, what is true does not have to be known, so even if Mars is the fourth planet is a truth, it need not be known by anyone, and not so long ago it was not known by anybody.
well I would agree there is a hierarchy to the value of knowledge as well as many other things. So mars as the 4th planet is more significant than the capital of Equador, and less than the theory of gravity, special relativity or thermodynamics. What is your impression of justified belief versus knowledge in Plato and his theory of anamnesis (remembrances of the soul from the realm of the eternal)?
I also agree there are many true things which are not known. Perhaps you can be less sarcastic and more open to polite exchange.:surrender:
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 09:03 pm
@prothero,
prothero;163697 wrote:
Of course one could just have abandoned the notion of God as eternal changless perfection and substituted the immanent god in relationship to creation and the world and avoided some of the relgious consequences.

The division between life and no life is somewhat artificial.
The division between mind and no mind is somewhat artificial.

One can then infer that (mind and life) are Illusions in a cold, lifeless, deterministic, materialistic machine like world
or
One can infer that the world itself is full of life and mind like properties

I choose the latter view: that the universe is more of an organism than a machine and is perceptive, responsive, striving and enchanted to the core.


I am reading The Presence of the Past by Rupert Sheldrake. I think you would like it, if you haven't heard of him. It will do a separate post on it.

On a related matter, the scholastic philosophy is not at all dead. It is alive and well in Catholic teaching to this day. It also sees an 'alive and enchanted' universe. I am interested in how it has adapted to the changes introduced by the scientific revolution, but overall, I think it is a much more flexible system of thought than Protestantism. Which is, maybe, why there are very few, or no, Catholic fundamentalists.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 09:14 pm
@prothero,
prothero;163703 wrote:
People profess lots of things which their behavior belies. I can not imagine anyone who does not deliberate about their perceived choices and then believe that it makes a difference to the future what action they perform.
Free will as the ability to do otherwise not as actions without causes.

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 07:49 PM ----------



And how many theists, do you think, would say that people profess to be atheists whose behavior belies their profession of atheism? A lot depends on what is counted as confirming or disconfirming behavior. That people deliberate about their choices would not faze those who say they don't have free will, as I am sure you know. It is easy as pie to explain that deliberation away.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 10:03 pm
@prothero,
prothero;163697 wrote:

I choose the latter view: that the universe is more of an organism than a machine and is perceptive, responsive, striving and enchanted to the core.


This is a great sentence.

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 11:13 PM ----------

I like the Form of Life concept. We can't see except from within our Form of Life, so the universe is as enchanted as our Form of Life is. I also feel that physics, which comes bearing technological gifts, has inspired more than a few humans to think of physics time as "true" time...but what is this physics time?
Quote:

In physics, the treatment of time is a central issue. It has been treated as a question of geometry. One can measure time and treat it as a geometrical dimension, such as length, and perform mathematical operations on it. It is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually listed in most physics books as a fundamental quantity.
We think of it spatially and numerically. Where did the time go in all this spacial extension and number?
Quote:

For instance, time and distance are related to each other by the speed of light, c, which is a fundamental constant
So far, c seems like the top speed of information. What about entanglement? I don't know enough about it. Is entanglement a possible exception to this? Does anybody know?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 10:33 pm
@qualia,
Have a look at The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness....if you have a month or two to spare....
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 11:03 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;163746 wrote:
--So far, c seems like the top speed of information. What about entanglement? I don't know enough about it. Is entanglement a possible exception to this? Does anybody know?
Yes for paired or entagled quantum particles, seemingly the transmission of information is instantaneous (faster than light). This gives rise to the notion that everything is connected and perceiving by some mode other than the transmission of quanta. There is some dispute about the instantaneous nature of gravity as well. Mostly since there is no quantum theory of gravity and gravity waves have not been detected.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 02:06 pm
@prothero,
prothero;163764 wrote:
Yes for paired or entagled quantum particles, seemingly the transmission of information is instantaneous (faster than light). This gives rise to the notion that everything is connected and perceiving by some mode other than the transmission of quanta. There is some dispute about the instantaneous nature of gravity as well. Mostly since there is no quantum theory of gravity and gravity waves have not been detected.


Thanks, I find that amazing. It's also interesting that we are dealing with pairs.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 07:38:19