Namdrol on 4/4/2010 at 14:51
I think there is a confusion here between scientific method and materialism.
The point I was trying to make in my original post was that the dogma of materialism is as dangerous as the dogma of the yoghurt weavers
The scientific method is one of, if not the, greatest things that the human race has come up with,
But the view that "physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena" is just that, a view.
As I'm writing this, I'm working through quadratic regression functions and these serve as a perfect example to question a materialist view of the universe.
Many, many mathematicians subscribe to the world of platonic ideals when it comes to maths and where do these mathematic functions fit into a materialistic veiw?
And in fact where do the laws of physics which govern a materialist world, exist in this material world?
As a workable hypothesis for my my understanding of the world, I consider myself to be a hard atheist but that's all it is, a workable hypothesis.
And this has to be kept near the forefront of the mind
It is impossible to prove that we are not all like Turner near the start of Count Zero, strapped to a hospital bed in a vr world.
Epos Nix on 4/4/2010 at 15:24
I subscribe to a mostly materialist viewpoint, but I admit there is something odd about the entire machine. I mean, if our universe were truly as random as we would like to believe, why does it seem like it is constantly trying to organize itself? We can say this is just the laws of physics at work, but I think that's taking the laws of physics for granted. After all, it seems the culmination of these laws have produced us: beings which allow the universe to observe itself.
While I won't say this is evidence of a Creator being, I will readily admit that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense when thinking from a perfectly rational point of view. And who knows, maybe the Creator that everyone says exists is subject to the same laws of physics that we are. After all, our brains are simply billions of individual cells compressed into the same area that have chosen to work together... whose to say a machine like that can't exist on the universal scale?
Briareos H on 4/4/2010 at 15:47
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
why does it seem like it is constantly trying to organize itself?
It most certainly does the exact opposite of what you're saying.
fett on 4/4/2010 at 16:07
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I subscribe to a mostly materialist viewpoint, but I admit there is
something odd about the entire machine. I mean, if our universe were truly as random as we would like to believe, why does it seem like it is constantly trying to organize itself?
...how does this square with your view of entropy? :confused:
fett on 4/4/2010 at 16:09
Ha - we posted at the same time.
So - entropy?
Also, Just because something is random doesn't mean it's a chaotic mess - that's quite a jump you're making. Rejecting a Creator is an entirely different thing from rejecting design, which is why the evolution/creation polarization is ridiculous to begin with.
Epos Nix on 4/4/2010 at 16:16
I was merely illustrating the odd organizational tenancies our universe seems to employ. To what end? I don't know. Perhaps it is perfectly random and things just fall into place as they might, or perhaps we just take the whole system for granted because we are a part of it. I was just noting that it is indeed an odd phenomenon.
/edit. Perhaps I should rephrase that:
I don't understand your question there. Entropy?
Muzman on 4/4/2010 at 16:19
Quote:
Namdrol sez: the view that "physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena" is just that, a view.
As I'm writing this, I'm working through quadratic regression functions and these serve as a perfect example to question a materialist view of the universe.
Many, many mathematicians subscribe to the world of platonic ideals when it comes to maths and where do these mathematic functions fit into a materialistic veiw?
And in fact where do the laws of physics which govern a materialist world, exist in this material world?
I broadly agree, I think. I'm not sure. I haven't bothered with the low level philosophies in a while. I do find the tendency to assess things like mathematical principles and laws of physics as if they needed some phenomenological explanation really weird. I have no real answer to that one way or the other, and I can sorta see why people do, logically speaking. But it seems more like we're butting up against some limitation in human thinking than getting closer to their true nature; we just have to turn thoughts/logic/concepts into objects.
Or something.
What I'm more certain of is the difficulty in avoiding materialism as a consequence of the scientific method. I'm not familiar with this dogmatic materialism you're talking about, and while your hypothesis principle is a good one, I don't know how you can proceed on some inquiry without a materialist assumption. Or maybe that's exactly what you're saying and that's why it's a problem.
At any rate, these days I tend to look at things in terms of scales. The lack of any answer at the particle or pure logic level means little at the human scale of things, for instance. The uncertainties don't suddenly introduce the possibility of god or ghosts or whatever. Such things must be assessed on the physical evidence like always.
zombe on 4/4/2010 at 21:01
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
... if our universe were truly as random as we would like to believe, why does it seem like it is constantly trying to organize itself?
It is called evolution - and that, due of its very nature, is unavoidable. Can't see anything mysterious there. Not sure how long it can go on, but i think the tendency of entropy increase will equally unavoidably win someday. So, be happy we are here to ponder about it.
(... uh, what was i saying ... cool?)
Nicker on 4/4/2010 at 21:22
Manifestation is the interaction between chaos and order.
If the universe were perfectly ordered it would still be a singularity.
If the universe were perfectly chaotic it would be a tepid fog.
Biological evolution is this principle expressed in organic chemistry.
If there is a “creator” then it is not a personal god, this is not his sand box and we are not his chosen Lego People. To such a “creator” there is no difference between any one thing and any other thing.
I’d suggest that this “creator” (if it needs to exist) is an awareness or instruction informing the universe, consisting of two suggestions, “Go forth and multiply” – “Go forth and complexify”, and one rule, “Let the best expressions move on to the next round”!
