Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My problem with science

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 8:53:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It has heretofore been the work of science to rid our understanding of nature of intentionality, reasonless coherence, and anthropocentricism. But in so doing, science has (successfully and hence annoyingly) gleaned a fundamental consistency and order in nature, as well as a continuous sense of intelligibility. So I keep thinking to myself, why? Why should nature be so consistent so as to be understood? And even if nature is consistent, why should the bases of those consistencies be endlessly intelligible to us - we the humble product of one insular little process in the unbounded expanse of the universe? Why should mathematics hold everywhere? Why should logic apply everywhere? Is this not the very same reasonless coherence we sought to eviscerate through scientific investigation? We cannot launch this crusade against the ascendancy of man in nature, yet support that very idea in the process.

Few things in this world should make sense. Nothing should be universal. And our knowledge should be firmly and permanently limited. Why doesn't it seem that way?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 9:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 8:53:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
It has heretofore been the work of science to rid our understanding of nature of intentionality, reasonless coherence, and anthropocentricism. But in so doing, science has (successfully and hence annoyingly) gleaned a fundamental consistency and order in nature, as well as a continuous sense of intelligibility. So I keep thinking to myself, why? Why should nature be so consistent so as to be understood?

Our brains are obviously going to adapt to the universe as an essential part of the evolutionary process. You are confusing cause and effect by asking why nature can be understood.

And even if nature is consistent, why should the bases of those consistencies be endlessly intelligible to us - we the humble product of one insular little process in the unbounded expanse of the universe?

Why not though? Basically, why not expect the universe to be able to be understood? Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Why should mathematics hold everywhere?

Mathematics is just the way we describe the universe. It's like the English Language, it holds "everywhere" in the sense that anything can be described by words. That doesn't mean English is inherent to the universe, just like Math isn't inherent to the universe. Brian Greene even speculated that complex aliens might even use something more advanced than math to describe the universe.

Why should logic apply everywhere?

Who says it does? We assume it does because nothing contradicts that assumption, but even if it does apply everywhere....One could just ask why shouldn't logic apply everywhere?

This is the old "Why are long pants long?" type of useless questioning you are spouting here.

Is this not the very same reasonless coherence we sought to eviscerate through scientific investigation? We cannot launch this crusade against the ascendancy of man in nature, yet support that very idea in the process.

Science speaks nothing on the ascendancy of man lol


Few things in this world should make sense.

What doesn't make sense?

Nothing should be universal.

Why not?

And our knowledge should be firmly and permanently limited. Why doesn't it seem that way?

It does seem that way... Any scientist will tell you that there is probably way more about the universe we don't know, than do (and it will most likely always be that way). I really don't see any problem here...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 10:20:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 9:51:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Just come out of the closet at a theist already 000ike. I can smell your conversion from a mile way...

I'm probably one of the farthest things from a theist. As a matter of fact, my objections to intentionality and human specialty are what make me rule out theism pretty much permanently. If science has some semblance of anthropocentricism that I'm questioning, then why in the world would I resort to belief systems that are almost 100% anthropocentric?

I think you've misunderstood what my problem is. I'm saying that things should be more senseless, more disordered, and less intelligible. Suppose that even though we evolved in such a small context, it was more advantageous for nature to provide us with inherent knowledge of the most basic regulations of reality (logical axioms) rather than providing us with knowledge that only applied to the earthly environment. That then begs the question of why such basic regulations exist in the first place. Why are there laws of nature? From where did this order originate?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 11:01:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 10:20:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/21/2013 9:51:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Just come out of the closet at a theist already 000ike. I can smell your conversion from a mile way...

I'm probably one of the farthest things from a theist. As a matter of fact, my objections to intentionality and human specialty are what make me rule out theism pretty much permanently. If science has some semblance of anthropocentricism that I'm questioning, then why in the world would I resort to belief systems that are almost 100% anthropocentric?

I think you've misunderstood what my problem is. I'm saying that things should be more senseless, more disordered, and less intelligible.

Why though? What's the problem with the universe having sense, being ordered, and including intelligibility?

Suppose that even though we evolved in such a small context, it was more advantageous for nature to provide us with inherent knowledge of the most basic regulations of reality (logical axioms) rather than providing us with knowledge that only applied to the earthly environment. That then begs the question of why such basic regulations exist in the first place. Why are there laws of nature? From where did this order originate?

Who said the order "originated"? Maybe that's just the way reality inherently is, or has to be.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 11:03:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 10:20:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/21/2013 9:51:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Just come out of the closet at a theist already 000ike. I can smell your conversion from a mile way...

I'm probably one of the farthest things from a theist. As a matter of fact, my objections to intentionality and human specialty are what make me rule out theism pretty much permanently. If science has some semblance of anthropocentricism that I'm questioning, then why in the world would I resort to belief systems that are almost 100% anthropocentric?

I think you've misunderstood what my problem is. I'm saying that things should be more senseless, more disordered, and less intelligible. Suppose that even though we evolved in such a small context, it was more advantageous for nature to provide us with inherent knowledge of the most basic regulations of reality (logical axioms) rather than providing us with knowledge that only applied to the earthly environment. That then begs the question of why such basic regulations exist in the first place. Why are there laws of nature? From where did this order originate?

Just because you can imagine a more disordered and chaotic universe, doesn't mean that has any bearing on reality. For all we know, the very nature of reality is that of order and eventual complexity, which eventually leads to creatures who can comprehend it; like us. Maybe we are an accident in a universe that is inherently complex? The real answer is: we don't know. All we can do is speculate.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 11:14:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
000ike: It has heretofore been the work of science to rid our understanding of nature of intentionality, reasonless coherence, and anthropocentricism.

The Fool: That is not the work of science. That would be biased, science is supposed to help us understand how the world works.

000ike: But in so doing, science has (successfully and hence annoyingly) gleaned a fundamental consistency and order in nature, as well as a continuous sense of intelligibility.

So I keep thinking to myself, why? Why should nature be so consistent so as to be understood?

The Fool: Because to understand something is to recognize its organization. We could not learn something for which there was no pattern. Thus the more we understand something, the more ordered it will appear to us, and the less we understand something the more sporadic and random it will appear to us.

000ike: And even if nature is consistent, why should the bases of those consistencies be endlessly intelligible to us -

The Fool: What is beyond our understanding, is not worth talking about, in fact it is dangerous to do so.
1. We might forget that we actually don't know over talking about.
2. We would be open to the charge that we don't know what we're talking about..
3. Mistakes can only be made by acting upon false beliefs.

000ike: we the humble product of one insular little process in the unbounded expanse of the universe?

The Fool: We're synonymously the creators of the universe, as that is, itself,\our own theory.

000ike: Why should mathematics hold everywhere? Why should logic apply everywhere?

The Fool: Because these languages deal with nothing in particular. And therefore everything altogether. . For everything is One, and so are each of its particulars. For even if there is three, there is one set of three. With three ones, an one three in a Set.

000ike: Is this not the very same reasonless coherence we sought to eviscerate through scientific investigation?

The Fool: Or is it possible, that what you are talking about, is what "you yourself" means when you say "science." and are not aware that you project and interpret, your own meaning, on top of what other people mean, but think to yourself to be communicating, as opposed to asserting over.

000ike: We cannot launch this crusade against the ascendancy of man in nature, yet support that very idea in the process.

The Fool: Crusade? That sounds like a religious issue. There's lots of problems in science, it is like everything else, where from afar it looks coherent incomplete and whole. But as you put it to the magnifying glass, you see all the holes and problems, and disagreements within the discipline which is never seen before. Not that that makes anything less, than what it is or what it was, as it is the same when you know it or not.

000ike: Nothing should be universal.

The Fool: From where do you derive an ought from an is?
<(8D)

A Universal, is simply the most general aspect. E.g. The most general feature of Man would be something universal to Man. But even, man and universe are our own "terms". Is us that create these categories. So I am myself, I'm fairly certain that the universe is universal.

000ike: And our knowledge should be firmly and permanently limited. Why doesn't it seem that way?

The Fool: Because we are each limited to our own understanding, and what limits it, is of course, the thing which is beyond it. That very limit which all questions seek, and its answer, the limit to each and every question"

Or at least that is what a fool once told me. Take it for what it's worth.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 9:09:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This seems like a very bad Sokal attempt.

Science is not anthropocentric, but what it focuses on tends to be. This is because of the obvious funding that goes more into human-related diseases for example.

However, science acts from an impartial standing point where results cannot be tampered with by simply your perspective (this "perspective" being ideological upbringing, not whether you watch it or not) being different. Some can, unfortunately; certain social sciences are more iffy. However, the scientific method does not have an anthropocentric viewpoint.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 9:12:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 11:14:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

You seem to be knit picking without giving me much content (i.e your reference to word choice "crusade" and biased science). I never said that science sought a particular result, but that its results had a particular tendency that we found satisfying. You're also not addressing my question here. My question was why there is organization and hence understanding. And it seems that your answer dissolves into "there is organization because there is organization".
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 9:14:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 9:09:33 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This seems like a very bad Sokal attempt.

Science is not anthropocentric, but what it focuses on tends to be. This is because of the obvious funding that goes more into human-related diseases for example.

However, science acts from an impartial standing point where results cannot be tampered with by simply your perspective (this "perspective" being ideological upbringing, not whether you watch it or not) being different. Some can, unfortunately; certain social sciences are more iffy. However, the scientific method does not have an anthropocentric viewpoint.

I didn't say it did. In fact I said the opposite....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 9:30:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 9:12:19 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/21/2013 11:14:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

You seem to be knit picking without giving me much content (i.e your reference to word choice "crusade" and biased science). I never said that science sought a particular result, but that its results had a particular tendency that we found satisfying. You're also not addressing my question here. My question was why there is organization and hence understanding. And it seems that your answer dissolves into "there is organization because there is organization".

Which is about all one can say to answer you. You have, in fact, heavily implied an agenda for science, that is, proving man unimportant. But now you're backpedaling, nonsensically, because science is so powerful, or something, and makes man seem important. You see some glint of purpose, I think, and are frightened by it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 10:06:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The anthropomorphic principle rules out the possibility of observance in a disorderly universe. A universe in which order ( i.e. logic) is absent would be inconsistent and could not exist, for its existence would require the very order it lacks. Logic is the recognition of those rules by which a universe must incorporate in order to exist, and thus, those rules that are necessarily present in any reality open to perception. All logic, in essence, is an extension of the premise that A is A...that reality is real. In this sense, logic IS reality, not the product of it.

Also, Einstein has a great quote on this: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 12:01:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 9:14:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/22/2013 9:09:33 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This seems like a very bad Sokal attempt.

Science is not anthropocentric, but what it focuses on tends to be. This is because of the obvious funding that goes more into human-related diseases for example.

However, science acts from an impartial standing point where results cannot be tampered with by simply your perspective (this "perspective" being ideological upbringing, not whether you watch it or not) being different. Some can, unfortunately; certain social sciences are more iffy. However, the scientific method does not have an anthropocentric viewpoint.

I didn't say it did. In fact I said the opposite....

You're not doing a good job of expressing it then, because I thought you were saying the exact same thing as Hawking. You are asking questions that someone with a theistic minset would ask.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 12:07:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 12:01:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/22/2013 9:14:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/22/2013 9:09:33 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This seems like a very bad Sokal attempt.

Science is not anthropocentric, but what it focuses on tends to be. This is because of the obvious funding that goes more into human-related diseases for example.

However, science acts from an impartial standing point where results cannot be tampered with by simply your perspective (this "perspective" being ideological upbringing, not whether you watch it or not) being different. Some can, unfortunately; certain social sciences are more iffy. However, the scientific method does not have an anthropocentric viewpoint.

I didn't say it did. In fact I said the opposite....

You're not doing a good job of expressing it then, because I thought you were saying the exact same thing as Hawking. You are asking questions that someone with a theistic minset would ask.

You're right, and that's my fault. I think that stems from the fact that the objection I'm trying to express is pretty nebulous - more felt than thought - so attempting to explain it amounts to a sort of disorganized and sometimes even contradictory exposition. Nevertheless, I think Dylan answered it best.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 10:06:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The anthropomorphic principle rules out the possibility of observance in a disorderly universe. A universe in which order ( i.e. logic) is absent would be inconsistent and could not exist, for its existence would require the very order it lacks. Logic is the recognition of those rules by which a universe must incorporate in order to exist, and thus, those rules that are necessarily present in any reality open to perception. All logic, in essence, is an extension of the premise that A is A...that reality is real. In this sense, logic IS reality, not the product of it.


Also, Einstein has a great quote on this: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

This is the issue I have: why is it so incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible? What's the problem?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:38:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:29:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/22/2013 10:06:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The anthropomorphic principle rules out the possibility of observance in a disorderly universe. A universe in which order ( i.e. logic) is absent would be inconsistent and could not exist, for its existence would require the very order it lacks. Logic is the recognition of those rules by which a universe must incorporate in order to exist, and thus, those rules that are necessarily present in any reality open to perception. All logic, in essence, is an extension of the premise that A is A...that reality is real. In this sense, logic IS reality, not the product of it.


Also, Einstein has a great quote on this: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

This is the issue I have: why is it so incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible? What's the problem?

The absolute beauty of existence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:40:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:38:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:29:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/22/2013 10:06:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The anthropomorphic principle rules out the possibility of observance in a disorderly universe. A universe in which order ( i.e. logic) is absent would be inconsistent and could not exist, for its existence would require the very order it lacks. Logic is the recognition of those rules by which a universe must incorporate in order to exist, and thus, those rules that are necessarily present in any reality open to perception. All logic, in essence, is an extension of the premise that A is A...that reality is real. In this sense, logic IS reality, not the product of it.


Also, Einstein has a great quote on this: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

This is the issue I have: why is it so incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible? What's the problem?

The absolute beauty of existence.

It's not that beautiful, I could design a much better universe given the chance.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:47:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:29:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/22/2013 10:06:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The anthropomorphic principle rules out the possibility of observance in a disorderly universe. A universe in which order ( i.e. logic) is absent would be inconsistent and could not exist, for its existence would require the very order it lacks. Logic is the recognition of those rules by which a universe must incorporate in order to exist, and thus, those rules that are necessarily present in any reality open to perception. All logic, in essence, is an extension of the premise that A is A...that reality is real. In this sense, logic IS reality, not the product of it.


Also, Einstein has a great quote on this: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

This is the issue I have: why is it so incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible? What's the problem?

I don't find it amazing that the universe is orderly, I find it amazing that we are able to discern and realize that order. Aspects of reality are understand by the human mind, which I think is pretty remarkable. It's sort of like, why isn't there more to it? Shouldn't the workings of reality be more complex?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Einstein wasn't even touching upon being able to unravel complexity with that quote by the way, just existence. He always said 'God.'
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:52:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He hardly meant, "Oh, the greatest thing about existence is that I'm so smart," now, did he?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:52:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:47:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:29:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/22/2013 10:06:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The anthropomorphic principle rules out the possibility of observance in a disorderly universe. A universe in which order ( i.e. logic) is absent would be inconsistent and could not exist, for its existence would require the very order it lacks. Logic is the recognition of those rules by which a universe must incorporate in order to exist, and thus, those rules that are necessarily present in any reality open to perception. All logic, in essence, is an extension of the premise that A is A...that reality is real. In this sense, logic IS reality, not the product of it.


Also, Einstein has a great quote on this: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

This is the issue I have: why is it so incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible? What's the problem?

I don't find it amazing that the universe is orderly, I find it amazing that we are able to discern and realize that order. Aspects of reality are understand by the human mind, which I think is pretty remarkable. It's sort of like, why isn't there more to it? Shouldn't the workings of reality be more complex?

Basically, I find it hard to understand why we're able to understand something so fundamental. WE. Not that it is hard to understand why it's comprehensible in its own right.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:57:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:47:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:29:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/22/2013 10:06:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The anthropomorphic principle rules out the possibility of observance in a disorderly universe. A universe in which order ( i.e. logic) is absent would be inconsistent and could not exist, for its existence would require the very order it lacks. Logic is the recognition of those rules by which a universe must incorporate in order to exist, and thus, those rules that are necessarily present in any reality open to perception. All logic, in essence, is an extension of the premise that A is A...that reality is real. In this sense, logic IS reality, not the product of it.


Also, Einstein has a great quote on this: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

This is the issue I have: why is it so incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible? What's the problem?

I don't find it amazing that the universe is orderly, I find it amazing that we are able to discern and realize that order.

It may be amazing, but some of you guys are acting like its some sort of shocker that this would be the case. What is the justification for that assumption?

Aspects of reality are understand by the human mind, which I think is pretty remarkable.

Sure, it's remarkable.

It's sort of like, why isn't there more to it? Shouldn't the workings of reality be more complex?

Lol What are basing your assumptions of how reality "ought to be" on?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 1:58:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:52:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:47:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:29:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/22/2013 10:06:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The anthropomorphic principle rules out the possibility of observance in a disorderly universe. A universe in which order ( i.e. logic) is absent would be inconsistent and could not exist, for its existence would require the very order it lacks. Logic is the recognition of those rules by which a universe must incorporate in order to exist, and thus, those rules that are necessarily present in any reality open to perception. All logic, in essence, is an extension of the premise that A is A...that reality is real. In this sense, logic IS reality, not the product of it.


Also, Einstein has a great quote on this: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

This is the issue I have: why is it so incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible? What's the problem?

I don't find it amazing that the universe is orderly, I find it amazing that we are able to discern and realize that order. Aspects of reality are understand by the human mind, which I think is pretty remarkable. It's sort of like, why isn't there more to it? Shouldn't the workings of reality be more complex?

Basically, I find it hard to understand why we're able to understand something so fundamental.

What's so hard to understand about it? Is there something I'm missing here?

WE. Not that it is hard to understand why it's comprehensible in its own right.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 2:01:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/22/2013 1:57:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:47:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/22/2013 1:29:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/22/2013 10:06:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The anthropomorphic principle rules out the possibility of observance in a disorderly universe. A universe in which order ( i.e. logic) is absent would be inconsistent and could not exist, for its existence would require the very order it lacks. Logic is the recognition of those rules by which a universe must incorporate in order to exist, and thus, those rules that are necessarily present in any reality open to perception. All logic, in essence, is an extension of the premise that A is A...that reality is real. In this sense, logic IS reality, not the product of it.


Also, Einstein has a great quote on this: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

This is the issue I have: why is it so incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible? What's the problem?

I don't find it amazing that the universe is orderly, I find it amazing that we are able to discern and realize that order.

It may be amazing, but some of you guys are acting like its some sort of shocker that this would be the case. What is the justification for that assumption?

Aspects of reality are understand by the human mind, which I think is pretty remarkable.

Sure, it's remarkable.

It's sort of like, why isn't there more to it? Shouldn't the workings of reality be more complex?

Lol What are basing your assumptions of how reality "ought to be" on?

Because it seems like it should be more complex.

Who you gunna call?