tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post2220468378501656143..comments2024-03-28T12:10:26.197-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Playing Dice with the Cosmos and Taking a Chance on GodGagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-71779913180803033682010-08-11T22:33:41.180-07:002010-08-11T22:33:41.180-07:00I found "The Black Swan" very useful in ...I found "The Black Swan" very useful in clarifying many things for me. I look forward to this topic. <br /><br />My ears are ringing from playing with a serious heavy-hitting rock drummer. Loud...but fun.<br /><br />Good night to all.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708393262849661076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-82380391729567116912010-08-11T15:26:35.536-07:002010-08-11T15:26:35.536-07:00JP said "You and I are making different metap...JP said "You and I are making different metaphysical assumptions."<br /><br />Correct. However, mine are right, and yours are wrong.<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />"My assertion is that mathematics is essentially a transcendent property of mind (for lack of a better phrase). Where mind exists, mathematics exists."<br /><br />Mathematics cannot exist without minds able to perceptually perceive and conceptually understand reality. If the reality of this, or any other universe, is not one, inseparable whole, nothing will be able to be perceived, no truth could be known, and no principles for knowing any of it such as mathematics, or physics, could be discovered. <br /><br />All of that is interrelated and inseparable, and none of it is contingent.<br /><br />"When I say "physics" I could rather say the specific mathematical manifold that forms the boundary conditions for this universe. In fact, that's what gives this particular univers it's "personality" so to speak."<br /><br />Were you talking to Frank too? No. Or rather, you could be saying that, but you would not be speaking of Physics. Or of mathematics. Or of Truth.<br /><br />Physics forms nothing. Physics is formed by our ability to understand the Universe as it is.<br /><br />or isn't, as in the case of multiple universes (no, not an assertion, just a taunt).<br /><br />"The specific properties of water and ice are dependent on this universe."<br /><br />No more so than this universe is dependent upon the specific properties of water and ice.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-44995780104298479482010-08-11T15:07:27.117-07:002010-08-11T15:07:27.117-07:00Not to belabor my previous point, but someone here...Not to belabor my previous point, but someone here just made the comment '<i>Well, that's how ice behaves here on earth in our atmosphere and gravity... it's imaginable that differences in gravity or something could cause ice to sink.</i>"<br /><br />Well... perhaps. I suspect it still wouldn't happen, but not being a chemist or physicist, I won't say - but even so, that would prove my point, not the wackedemic's.<br /><br />If conditions on another planet, Jupiter say, causes ice to sink, that's just another set of circumstances to which H2O responds to, as a result of the properties of it's molecular nature, which in other circumstances would result in it's freezing, flowing, turning to water vapor, or perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, sinking.<br /><br />But that's not the point of the prof's 'necessary vs. contingent' meme.<br /><br />Their point is that '2+2=4' is somehow floating about uni-universally in some platonic form, dis-integrated from the universe(s) which give rise to them, but the question of whether ice floats or sinks, is nothing but a chance result the customs and cultural behavior of 'Physics' in this universe, and that is pure bunk.<br /><br />Ice floating in water, is as much a result of the nature of H20 when frozen, as it is of when it's water (and of any contaminants in it), and as it is of gravity, and as it is of atmospheric pressure, and as it is of any other property we are able to perceive <i>thru</i> physics, all operating together, inseparably and at once.<br /><br />It is One Cosmos... one, massively and thoroughly integrated structure, which due to the nature and properties of our minds, we (thankfully) are able to perceive and analyze it into discrete segments, tree's, rocks, stars, bikini tops (ok, <i>enough</i> of the bikini ref's already), etc, but there is no 'particular' portion of any part of this cosmos, this wooden flower on my desk for instance, that is actually, truly, separated from some portion of dust floating about on the other side of cygnus x-1.<br /><br />As chance would have it, it's all One, and because it is, we are able to perceive it... and that's <i>freedom</i> baby! <i>Yeah!</i>Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-31908551169563427702010-08-11T14:39:19.879-07:002010-08-11T14:39:19.879-07:00Van says:
"It's not proper to say that a...Van says:<br /><br />"It's not proper to say that any physical properties are "contingent upon specific physics" as if the two were separable, physics IS only a techne, a mental tool, for perceiving the properties of the cosmos, which gave rise to it, er, both."<br /><br />I think you are confusing this particular universe with the entire cosmos, which I presume to contain multiple universes.<br /><br />My assertion is that mathematics is essentially a transcendent property of mind (for lack of a better phrase). Where mind exists, mathematics exists.<br /><br />When I say "physics" I could rather say the specific mathematical manifold that forms the boundary conditions for this universe. In fact, that's what gives this particular univers it's "personality" so to speak.<br /><br />The specific properties of water and ice are dependent on this universe.<br /><br />You and I are making different metaphysical assumptions.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-15646674408261705512010-08-11T13:43:31.986-07:002010-08-11T13:43:31.986-07:00JP said "Namely, that 2+2=4 must be true acro...JP said "Namely, that 2+2=4 must be true across all possible universes, since it is contained within abstract mathematics itself, wheras the properties of ice and water are contingent upon the specific physics (boundaries) of this universe."<br /><br />Nope, the properties of H20, which under different conditions produce different characteristics (which may be contingent upon whether or not I put a cup of it into the freezer or the microwave), are a direct result of the nature of the entire universe and are no more separable from even a jot of it, than are it's other properties which we've conceptually developed into perceiving as the laws of mathematics. <br /><br />It's not proper to say that any physical properties are "contingent upon specific physics" as if the two were separable, physics IS <i>only</i> a techne, a mental tool, for perceiving the properties of the cosmos, which gave rise to it, er, both.<br /><br />Ice floating in water is as inseparable from all of reality as are the Sun's rays ability to burn skin and bikini's to look good (with a few contingent qualifications thrown in, of course), and that applies equally to this universe or any other someone may dream up (which, I suspect, are only dreamt up, but that's another thread altogether).<br /><br />There is not a single, metaphysically given property of the Cosmos that is contingent, and if somehow Dr. Evil managed to create a contingency ray and altered a single one, no matter how seemingly small - 'Poof!' would the result that would universaly result.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-17112249695659638272010-08-11T13:15:09.991-07:002010-08-11T13:15:09.991-07:00JP said "Actually, there is "evil" ...JP said "Actually, there is "evil" that is essentially built into human systems.<br />For example, the automobile and highway system will generally cause a certain number of fatalities and injuries each year.<br />There is no way around this.<br />We trade the ability to get around easily with the certain knoweldge that a number of people will be killed or maimed each year because of the system itself."<br /><br />As Col. Potter might say: <i>Buffallo Cookies!</i> There's no 'this' there to need to bother getting around.<br /><br />1st, 'evil' is not the equivelent of chance or of bad, and 'evil' is not built into either.<br />2nd, neither automobiles or highway systems <i>cause</i> any number of fatalities or injuries in any years. <br />3rd, No people are going to be "killed or maimed each year <b>because</b> of the system itself"<br /><br />People, individuals driving their cars upon highways, through their careful, careless or chance usage of them, cause individual accidents, which when tallied up at the end of the year, number into the thousands. There's a huge difference between the two... consult ralph nader or algore for some tips on how to make money from skillfully confusing the two.<br /><br />We don't deal with the "automobile and highway system" as a single entity which we must power up our benthamite calculators to get a 'greater good' or greater evil' reading on; attempting to deal with it as if it were is a false composition, and nothing good can follow from that. <br /><br />Both highways and automobiles are goods, which involve our free will in making use of as well as chance occurances, and which in comparison to my other options for getting to work, etc, are unquestionable goods. Period.<br /><br />You might think I'm being overly picky... I don't.<br /><br />wv:asesify<br />It said it, not meVan Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-41599818466845698902010-08-11T12:38:08.556-07:002010-08-11T12:38:08.556-07:00Van says:
"2+2 equals Four is a necessary tr...Van says:<br /><br />"2+2 equals Four is a necessary truth, and that there can not be round squares - because we cannot imagine it otherwise. But Ice sinking in water, is merely a contingent truth, because we can easily imagine ice sinking to the bottom of a glass of water"<br /><br />I see your point Van, but there does seem to be some sliver of truth to that, Van.<br /><br />Namely, that 2+2=4 must be true across all possible universes, since it is contained within abstract mathematics itself, wheras the properties of ice and water are contingent upon the specific physics (boundaries) of this universe.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-23680911691997705512010-08-11T12:30:20.065-07:002010-08-11T12:30:20.065-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-13062513883822933762010-08-11T12:30:07.099-07:002010-08-11T12:30:07.099-07:00greyniffler says:
"If you argue that acciden...greyniffler says:<br /><br />"If you argue that accidental death is evil, I think you must admit that its possibility is so woven through our existence that it belongs to existence, not to a specific, otherwise prudential, choice of action."<br /><br />How many deaths/injuries does the automobile/truck/motorcycle system cause vs. how many deaths does it prevent/how many injuries does it help?<br /><br />It's a utilitarian cost/benefit analysis.<br /><br />And it "belongs" to whoever comes up with the system and it's safety parameters.<br /><br />For example, the healthcare system causes a certain number of deaths every year. Why? Systemic problems that could be solved by people.<br /><br />Don't confuse human-created evil with so-called "natural" evil.<br /><br />"Natural" evil can generally be avoided if you understand nature. Just don't do something that is guaranteed to fail.<br /><br />For example, California.<br /><br />I've pulled this from an old Fox News:<br /><br />"In the test scenario, deep-rolling seismic waves move nearly 200 miles across the Southern California landscape, leaving a wake of devastation. Predictions are over 2,000 deaths, 50,000 injuries and $200 billion in damage to the Los Angeles area. There would also be 4,000 or so fires, and making matters worse, the water supply would be out for six months, thanks to contamination from nearby sewage pipes."<br /><br />We know that an eartquake is going to hit CA and cause this damage.<br /><br />This "problem" is "owned" by anyone who lives in the area of California that is expected to be hit by a major earthquake and knows this.<br /><br />There is a very easy solution to this problem.<br /><br />Don't live in earthquake prone areas.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-20067231583352980522010-08-11T12:29:42.278-07:002010-08-11T12:29:42.278-07:00"Thus, one of the purposes of a spiritual pra..."Thus, one of the purposes of a spiritual practice is to distinguish between those things that must be versus those things that may be."<br /><br />And one of the purposes of an anti-spiritual practice is to cause confusion between what must me, and those that only chance to be. Insert my Rant against against prof's peddling their 'necessary vs. contingent' slop on young skulls turned to mush (<i>""2+2 equals Four is a necessary truth, and that there can not be round squares - because we cannot imagine it otherwise. But Ice sinking in water, is merely a contingent truth, because we can easily imagine ice sinking to the bottom of a glass of water" - which is absolute B.S., there is absolutely nothing contingent about the properties of ice floating in water..."</i>).<br /><br />But if you can cause someone to believe that the metaphysically given, is merely random chance, or even better, due to the unconscious expectations of the collective... then it's mere wackedemics play to cause them to believe that there is no truth, no choice and no virtue. <br /><br />And of course for a view of the practices that follow from spirits who think the metaphysical is contingent... look around.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-71103564590053491572010-08-11T11:21:49.692-07:002010-08-11T11:21:49.692-07:00Bob,
The left rebels against God, while the tenure...<b>Bob</b>,<br /><i>The left rebels against God, while the tenured think they are God. Which is why the tenured radical is such a destructive demon.</i><br /><br />To be fair, one needn't be on the Left or tenured to do these things. They have no monopoly on them, however fashionalbe and effective they may be.<br /><br /><b>Northern Bandit</b>,<br /><i>Actually, there is "evil" that is essentially built into human systems.<br /><br />For example, the automobile and highway system will generally cause a certain number of fatalities and injuries each year.</i><br /><br />And the use of the automobile saves a large number of lives transporting people to the hospital or the doctor. It saves lives by avoiding the megatons of horse dung that would otherwise become a public health menace.<br /><br />The use of fire results in a certain number of deaths; is that evil? (If so, then the use of candles in a church service is also evil.)<br /><br />If you argue that accidental death is evil, I think you must admit that its possibility is so woven through our existence that it belongs to existence, not to a specific, otherwise prudential, choice of action.greynifflerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02681797294152035949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-11545510412245460462010-08-11T09:52:59.962-07:002010-08-11T09:52:59.962-07:00Bob says:
"But history proper -- human histo...Bob says:<br /><br />"But history proper -- human history -- is in no way predictable, again, because there is no law that predicts it. Rather, it's just induction. For example, if you say that tomorrow will be similar to today, you'll probably be right"<br /><br />There is a nearly 100% probability that the next second will be extremely similiar to this instant of human history<br /><br />There is a nearly 0% probability that the year 3000 will be extremely similiar to this instant of human history. <br /><br />Why? The cumulative exercise of free will in 7 billion individuals (and subsequent generations) over the next 1000 years.<br /><br />That's my point.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-3478352300021051872010-08-11T09:42:39.228-07:002010-08-11T09:42:39.228-07:00NB says:
"Is it really "evil" thou...NB says:<br /><br />"Is it really "evil" though? It's a trade-off for sure, but I don't think most people would consider it to be a compromise with evil in the way that, say, negotiating with terrorists might be."<br /><br />Well, it's a trade off between convenience and death/dismembermnet. So, to the extent that we are trading the opportunity to be lazy for death...<br /><br />You would have to be able to calculate how many lives are saved because of the use of the transportation network to get food and medicine delivered if you want to weigh the good and the evil, I suppose.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-32361549433472242432010-08-11T09:25:40.176-07:002010-08-11T09:25:40.176-07:00Mongoose:
Do not concur. I am in metaphysical ag...Mongoose:<br /><br />Do not concur. I am in metaphysical agreement with Jesus that there is no one good but the One.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-61682353066309427832010-08-11T09:21:48.074-07:002010-08-11T09:21:48.074-07:00JP: well then you are not thinking very deeply. An...JP: well then you are not thinking very deeply. An purely logically or linguistically it is not self-refuting at all. Perhaps you mean something else, but that sentence is not "self-refuting".<br /><br />Go back and parse the sentence.Mongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02589719532522110546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-27618734196893543702010-08-11T09:19:44.882-07:002010-08-11T09:19:44.882-07:00JP:
To say that the future is predictable in any...JP:<br /><br /><br />To say that the future is predictable in any way is to say it is lawful. Clearly, there are laws that apply to the lower dimensions in a pretty linear manner, as in predicting where the stars will be.<br /><br />But history proper -- human history -- is in no way predictable, again, because there is no law that predicts it. Rather, it's just induction. For example, if you say that tomorrow will be similar to today, you'll probably be right. But a black swan can still happen at any time.<br /><br />Taleb uses the example of a Turkey who has been fed every day by humans. Thus, he arrives at the law that human beings are these benign servants who bring food. <br /><br />Until the day before Thanksgiving.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91495541780312290502010-08-11T09:13:54.488-07:002010-08-11T09:13:54.488-07:00JP:
My example a few posts ago had to do with a s...JP:<br /><br />My example a few posts ago had to do with a school bus crash, so I hear you.<br /><br />Is it really "evil" though? It's a trade-off for sure, but I don't think most people would consider it to be a compromise with evil in the way that, say, negotiating with terrorists might be.Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68867483796113643712010-08-11T09:10:38.148-07:002010-08-11T09:10:38.148-07:00Mongoose says:
"Even the love of a man for h...Mongoose says:<br /><br />"Even the love of a man for his child is a good even if that man is deeply evil and sinful and the expression of that love is evil and damaging."<br /><br />I think this sentence is self-refuting.<br /><br />It's kind of like saying:<br /><br />"This sentence is a lie."JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-25029507042947420802010-08-11T09:07:12.557-07:002010-08-11T09:07:12.557-07:00NB says:
"Not that evil is equivalent to cha...NB says:<br /><br />"Not that evil is equivalent to chance -- my query concerned those events which appear to be evil but are in fact merely bad luck (the flip side of freedom)."<br /><br />Actually, there is "evil" that is essentially built into human systems.<br /><br />For example, the automobile and highway system will generally cause a certain number of fatalities and injuries each year.<br /><br />There is no way around this.<br /><br />We trade the ability to get around easily with the certain knoweldge that a number of people will be killed or maimed each year because of the system itself.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-8013665624439783412010-08-11T09:03:24.849-07:002010-08-11T09:03:24.849-07:00Bob says:
"Thus, freedom and chance go toget...Bob says:<br /><br />"Thus, freedom and chance go together like matter and law. It is largely because of freedom that the future is completely unpredictable. But because we are aware of the past, we superimpose narratives on it that make it seem as if the future will be similar. Thus, we are always surprised by the "black swans" that no one predicted, and yet, have the most impact on history."<br /><br />The future isn't completely unpredictable. It's acually very predicible at very short time frames and only become less predictible as you move your projections further out in time.<br /><br />Acts that involve the use of free will create "distortions" that then change future events. However, the totality of the future impact of actions taken in the everpresent now cannot be determined with 100% certainty when a future now arrives later.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45302375683934472402010-08-11T08:59:37.059-07:002010-08-11T08:59:37.059-07:00I have to "object" a tad: The "good...I have to "object" a tad: The "good" is ontologically pure in both the moral and the existential senses. It is innately and intrinsically "good". It need not be qualified using either utilitarian or religious qualification. It need not have any meaning beyond its innate "goodness". It cannot or need not be "reduced" or "understood" beyond the mystery of its existence (and the equally mysterious ability to recognize it).<br /><br /><br />This is why the "good" is sensed by the whole of one's being and not just the mind. In fact, the good often eludes the clever mind: arriving at the point identifying, valuing and accommodating the good (and <i>never</i> disturbing or slandering it), particularly as a "thing in itself" is one of the great milestones in spiritual struggle and advancement. Even the love of a man for his child is a good even if that man is deeply evil and sinful and the expression of that love is evil and damaging. I<br /><br />The good is often not grandiose or spectacular. It is the mother's love for a child, the care of a well loved animal, the simple husbandry of a farmer in the field. It is an end in itself. It is as irreducible as God himself<br /><br />To us who know of God, certainly it reflects his nature, but this is tautological. It cannot but reflect this just as evil cannot reflect anything but his absence (or distance). The point is that to know good, truth and beauty and to stand with them we must see that the good is ontologically separate. It just so happens that there is truth in the good, and great beauty too for that matter, but the good exists independent of either--it may in fact precede them.<br /><br />Perhaps you do not intend to make such characterization. Perhaps when you put forward the qualification that the "world is good in the sense that it reflects God" in this manner you just mean to defend against pantheism or the stale arguments of the militant atheists. Perhaps we are saying the same thing.<br /><br />If any of these are the case then forgive me.Mongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02589719532522110546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79008831541241200532010-08-11T08:47:33.822-07:002010-08-11T08:47:33.822-07:00Not that evil is equivalent to chance -- my query ...Not that evil is equivalent to chance -- my query concerned those events which appear to be evil but are in fact merely bad luck (the flip side of freedom).Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-70946792213590417882010-08-11T08:45:57.377-07:002010-08-11T08:45:57.377-07:00This post is exactly what I was looking for when I...This post is exactly what I was looking for when I asked my (larded with flattery) question about the "problem of evil" a few days ago.<br /><br />And indeed it does seem self-evident when laid out explicitly like that.Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.com