Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fooloso4 wrote:

Jklint:

What I find ironic is how philosophy is all about how one sees it in which truth is often the exemption if not an utter inconvenience. Philosophers are usually as bureaucratic on ideas as lawyers and judges are on Justice, Law being the measure of it.

What is philosophical inquiry about if the truth is exempted and treated as an inconvenience?

Please, tell us how you see it, or rather, tell us the truth so that how we see it will be as it is. I don’t think we will be all that inconvenienced. I, for one, will be grateful.

In what way are philosophers bureaucratic on ideas? Who are the officials who govern the system? I would really need some specific examples before writing this off as an uniformed opinion. Who knows, maybe we will have to make you a high ranking official so that you can exempt all those who exempt the truth.

Rephrase your questions in a less patronizing, superior and facetious manner and I "may" respond.

If anything, that's what philosophers are really good at, isn't it? I mean, if we didn't have superiority, facetiousness and the opportunity to use obscure (or at the very least polysemous) words, would we still play?

Neopolitan wrote:If anything, that's what philosophers are really good at, isn't it? I mean, if we didn't have superiority, facetiousness and the opportunity to use obscure (or at the very least polysemous) words, would we still play?

Man, how right you are! In the few short months I have been year, I always keep dictionary.com open. I have learned more words in this time than in the last 15 years. Now excuse me, while I look up polysemous.

Radar wrote:Browne's Theism so thoroughly demolishes atheistic arguments in the introduction that the rest of the book is almost superfluous. But put Return to the One: Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization by Brian Hines on your reading list, anyway.

It's Bowne, not Browne. But never mind. I rose to the implied challenge and read the introduction. Are you sure you read the same book as me? Perhaps you did read Theism by Borden P. Browne, as opposed to Theism by Borden P. Bowne and the former is far superior to the latter.

What I can tell you is that I followed your links and I read the introduction by Bowne and it's far from a body blow to atheism. If that is the standard you are holding yourself to (along with other theists) then it's no wonder that you and your ilk so often succumb to triumfantilism.

When you see a piece of writing that talks airily of the "lesser races", and suggests that religion is a modern important study (that religion is to animism as astronomy is to astrology), you have to wonder. There's a motherlode of reification and wishful thinking in there and very, very little argument that addresses the real issues that lead atheists to not believe in the claims made by theists. I am sure, nevertheless, that the rest of the book is, as you suggest, superfluous. I certainly won't be trudging through it.

Jklint wrote: The belief that the Universe would be a revelation to itself through the likes of us wouldn't exactly do it much honor.

That would depend on your comportment, would it not?

Quotidian wrote:

Jklint wrote: The belief that the Universe would be a revelation to itself through the likes of us wouldn't exactly do it much honor.

That would depend on your comportment, would it not?

What does our "collective" comportment on planet earth tell you? The ebola virus has nothing on human DNA!

Snowflakes. If you were walking along a beach and came across sea shells arranged in the sand in a similar inticate pattern to that of a snowflake, would you say that that structure (for want of a better word) is the result of (a) chance (ie, the action of waves or wind), or (b) human activity?

I contend that 99.99 - 100% of people on the planet would choose (b). Yet many of the same poeple who would choose (b), if asked the same question regarding an actual snowflake, would insist that the snowflake is the result of chance. Fascinating.

Anthony Edgar wrote:Snowflakes. If you were walking along a beach and came across sea shells arranged in the sand in a similar inticate pattern to that of a snowflake, would you say that that structure (for want of a better word) is the result of (a) chance (ie, the action of waves or wind), or (b) human activity?

I contend that 99.99 - 100% of people on the planet would choose (b). Yet many of the same poeple who would choose (b), if asked the same question regarding an actual snowflake, would insist that the snowflake is the result of chance. Fascinating.

However, if they saw the intricacy of a snowflake most would say that it was shaped by water's physical properties. At certain scales various kinds of patterns and configurations are considered either to be expected or unusual.

Anthony Edgar wrote:Snowflakes. If you were walking along a beach and came across sea shells arranged in the sand in a similar inticate pattern to that of a snowflake, would you say that that structure (for want of a better word) is the result of (a) chance (ie, the action of waves or wind), or (b) human activity?

I contend that 99.99 - 100% of people on the planet would choose (b). Yet many of the same poeple who would choose (b), if asked the same question regarding an actual snowflake, would insist that the snowflake is the result of chance. Fascinating.

It is not chance. It is mathematics.

Vijaydevani:

It is not chance. It is mathematics.

I agree, of course, that it is not chance, but the claim that it is mathematics raises some interesting questions.

This claim can be understood in different ways. One way to understand it is that mathematics describes or models what happens. We can model the activity of water molecules in a particular environment to explain the structure of a snowflake. The physical properties of sea shells and the environment of the beech do not produce such structures and so if we were to come across such patterns we would attribute them to the mathematician, that is, a person creating patterns with shells.

Some make stronger claims regarding mathematics. They are called mathematical Platonists. For them, mathematics is not just descriptive it is prescriptive or formative. There are patterns that occur in nature such as the Fibonacci sequence that lead mathematical Platonists to conclude that nature follows these patterns, that mathematics structure the universe. A recent version written for the general public is Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, by Max Tegmark.

Fooloso4 wrote:Vijaydevani:

It is not chance. It is mathematics.

I agree, of course, that it is not chance, but the claim that it is mathematics raises some interesting questions.

This claim can be understood in different ways. One way to understand it is that mathematics describes or models what happens. We can model the activity of water molecules in a particular environment to explain the structure of a snowflake. The physical properties of sea shells and the environment of the beech do not produce such structures and so if we were to come across such patterns we would attribute them to the mathematician, that is, a person creating patterns with shells.

Some make stronger claims regarding mathematics. They are called mathematical Platonists. For them, mathematics is not just descriptive it is prescriptive or formative. There are patterns that occur in nature such as the Fibonacci sequence that lead mathematical Platonists to conclude that nature follows these patterns, that mathematics structure the universe. A recent version written for the general public is Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, by Max Tegmark.

I don't know if nature ALWAYS follows mathematical patterns but it does seem that it very often does. It would definitely be amazing if mathematics really did structure the universe.

Vijaydevani wrote:I don't know if nature ALWAYS follows mathematical patterns but it does seem that it very often does. It would definitely be amazing if mathematics really did structure the universe.

Maths is just a language that, like all other languages, it describes the relationships between things, given that we have no baseline value of reality to refer to.

I'm hard pressed to think of a non-amazing explanation for reality :)

Greta wrote:

Vijaydevani wrote:I don't know if nature ALWAYS follows mathematical patterns but it does seem that it very often does. It would definitely be amazing if mathematics really did structure the universe.

Maths is just a language that, like all other languages, it describes the relationships between things, given that we have no baseline value of reality to refer to.

I'm hard pressed to think of a non-amazing explanation for reality

I agree Greta. The only way reality is not amazing is if it were designed by God.

Anthony Edgar wrote:Snowflakes. If you were walking along a beach and came across sea shells arranged in the sand in a similar intricate pattern to that of a snowflake, would you say that that structure (for want of a better word) is the result of (a) chance (ie, the action of waves or wind), or (b) human activity?

I contend that 99.99 - 100% of people on the planet would choose (b). Yet many of the same people who would choose (b), if asked the same question regarding an actual snowflake, would insist that the snowflake is the result of chance. Fascinating.

What about those of us who choose c) the result of the forces of physics produced by the shape of the water molecule? Which we'd use to explain why snowflakes make hexagons but not octagons or pentagons.

-- Updated 08 Oct 2016 12:32 to add the following --

Greta wrote:I'm hard pressed to think of a non-amazing explanation for reality

Why does reality have to be amazing?

Mark1955 wrote: Why does reality have to be amazing?

It doesn't. It just is.