Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 sorry, I dont know what this means Is the Universe One, or Many? If it is Many, then those Manies have no relation to each other and so effectively don't exist for one another, which defeats the purpose of calling it a "universe". If the Universe is One, then everything in it is connected to everything else. If one part of the Universe contains even a soupçon of irrationality, of unreasonableness, of "just is," of brute fact, then the relationship between that part and the other parts is contaminated by that irrationality, and since monads (elementary particles of existence) lack parts, the slightest tincture of irrationality to a monad renders it completely irrational. So, really, you think you're happily knocking God off his block, when in fact you are promoting total irrationality. Now, imagine how your philosophy works in the mind of the common man. It leads to all manner of pestilential modes of thought. "Just is" is a close companion to "so what?" which we arrive at in the mind of people gripped by such thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 If one part of the Universe contains even a soupçon of irrationality, of unreasonableness, of "just is," "Just is" isnt irrationality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 "Just is" isnt irrationality It's impenetrable-in-principle to rationality, making it the opposite of rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 It's impenetrable-in-principle to rationality, making it the opposite of rational. what? What definition of rational are you using? rational is to do with logic, premises and conclusions. a fact is never rational or irrational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 what? What definition of rational are you using? rational is to do with logic, premises and conclusions. a fact is never rational or irrational. Rational=principled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Rational=principled. sorry I know of no definition where rational = principled. from google definition of principled - "acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong." I have no idea what that has to do with rationality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 sorry I know of no definition where rational = principled. from google definition of principled - "acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong." I have no idea what that has to do with rationality Principle, such as universal gravitation, or Fermat's least-time principle of light, et al., universal reasons why the Universe works the way it does, which are vulnerable to discovery by human beings. Such discoveries are the highest manifestations of reason. Are you seriously arguing that there are no principles, or are you just insisting that part of the Universe is principled and part isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Principle, such as universal gravitation, or Fermat's least-time principle of light, et al., universal reasons why the Universe works the way it does, which are vulnerable to discovery by human beings. Such discoveries are the highest manifestations of reason. Are you seriously arguing that there are no principles, or are you just insisting that part of the Universe is principled and part isn't? I dont know why you are switching from rational to principled, when they mean two different things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 12, 2017 Author Share Posted February 12, 2017 I dont know why you are switching from rational to principled, when they mean two different things. What is reason's highest prize but the discovery of principles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_LiveFree_ Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 As I have shown, this is saying the Universe is irrational, making all science and understanding vain. Why do you worship chaos? Again, you have not shown this. To say the universe is irrational is to say it is illogical. However, logic is derived from the behavior of the universe itself. So your conclusion is now shown to be incorrect and irrational. Science and conscious understanding of the universe emerges out of the universe itself. I don't worship anything. And you call this chaos, but compared to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Again, you have not shown this. To say the universe is irrational is to say it is illogical. However, logic is derived from the behavior of the universe itself. So your conclusion is now shown to be incorrect and irrational. Science and conscious understanding of the universe emerges out of the universe itself. I don't worship anything. And you call this chaos, but compared to what? How is addition derived from the behaviour of the universe? ----------------- Principled; If you say someone or something has principles, you are saying it has substance or integrity. Principled does not equal rational. It is confusing switching from principle to principled. I guess one could say the universe has integrity where as people don't always have it, but perhaps strive the best can for it in some cases. A principle perhaps could be said to be rational which would be essential to communicate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_LiveFree_ Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 How is addition derived from the behaviour of the universe? Logic is derived out of the universe through object constancy. A ball rolls under the couch, you can no longer see it, but it still exists and is still under the couch. Little children are excited by pic-a-boo until they figure out that nothing actually goes away. Mathematics uses logic, quantities, and the manipulation of those quantities in order to describe behavior in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 Again, you have not shown this. To say the universe is irrational is to say it is illogical. However, logic is derived from the behavior of the universe itself. So your conclusion is now shown to be incorrect and irrational. Science and conscious understanding of the universe emerges out of the universe itself. I don't worship anything. And you call this chaos, but compared to what? What is the logical reason for the Universe being the way it is and not another way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_LiveFree_ Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 What is the logical reason for the Universe being the way it is and not another way? Chance. Probabilities. Just like asking what is the logical reason for winning the lottery. That doesn't mean there isn't order to our universe. What it means is that there was a statistical probability that this universe would be ordered the way it is. There is no reason for you to exist. It just so happens that you do. Purpose, meaning, and value do not come out of why you are here but what are you going to do while you exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Logic is derived out of the universe through object constancy. A ball rolls under the couch, you can no longer see it, but it still exists and is still under the couch. Little children are excited by pic-a-boo until they figure out that nothing actually goes away. Mathematics uses logic, quantities, and the manipulation of those quantities in order to describe behavior in the universe. But is it the Object that is constant or the Subject(observer)? I would say that it is constancy in the subject. When is matter manifest in larger forms ever identical. I think change would be a better word than behaviour, as behaviour has psychological connotations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_LiveFree_ Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 But is it the Object that is constant or the Subject(observer)? I would say that it is constancy in the subject. When is matter manifest in larger forms ever identical. I think change would be a better word than behaviour, as behaviour has psychological connotations.This is silly. Everything in the universe is an object. Pseudo science interpretations of quantum mechanics is not science. It's religion. When speaking scientifically about non-mind objects, it is entirely appropriate to use the term behavior. Change is not an accurate descriptor. The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names. A=A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 This is silly. Everything in the universe is an object. Pseudo science interpretations of quantum mechanics is not science. It's religion. When speaking scientifically about non-mind objects, it is entirely appropriate to use the term behavior. Change is not an accurate descriptor. The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names. A=A There are no non-mind objects. Matter and objects are inconstant or else they wouldn't have "behaviour", which is inaccurate. Matter and objects maybe subject to Universal Laws, which are constant. A=A which is held in the mind of the Subject and therefore an expression of constancy. When equivalence is formed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 Chance. Probabilities. Just like asking what is the logical reason for winning the lottery. That doesn't mean there isn't order to our universe. What it means is that there was a statistical probability that this universe would be ordered the way it is. There is no reason for you to exist. It just so happens that you do. Purpose, meaning, and value do not come out of why you are here but what are you going to do while you exist. If I were to ask you why a flipped penny landed heads or tails, you would answer “chance” when in fact it is not chance, it is the action of universal principles on that penny that determined what its fate would be. “Chance” is not a logical reason, it is a filibuster. It's a statement of ignorance dressed in a mathematical coating. Chance is not an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_LiveFree_ Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 If I were to ask you why a flipped penny landed heads or tails, you would answer “chance” when in fact it is not chance, it is the action of universal principles on that penny that determined what its fate would be. “Chance” is not a logical reason, it is a filibuster. It's a statement of ignorance dressed in a mathematical coating. Chance is not an argument. Oh no. Are you still a determinist? My god you've been at this for how long? What are you doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 Oh no. Are you still a determinist? My god you've been at this for how long? What are you doing? Are you still unprincipled? How long will it take for the concept of principle to enter the minds of the putative philosophers of Terra? Most technically, the penny, if it has substance, also has will and so its decision factors into the results that it obtains. But, pennies are very easy-going sorts of things and so for all our purposes we can presume that the physical principles (or mental principles, in the case of a con-artist skilled at flipping pennies for a particular result) combine to determine what the penny will do. Humans, on the other hand, have a much larger element of free will, such that we call it "free" and say it can resist, sovereignly, much if not all of the impulses made upon it by the physical world, the world of principles whether physical or artistic-moral-psychological. So, in a sense, all things with substance and will have freedom to choose, as we see down into the tiniest microphysical scales of the Universe, but for our purposes, in the Newtonian scale, things, at least normally, behave as though they were determined absolutely. As I said, chance it not an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts