tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post8126544067619065929..comments2024-03-27T11:16:36.951-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Science, Magic, MetaphysicsGagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-51606685764868456872018-02-08T16:39:48.491-08:002018-02-08T16:39:48.491-08:00Thank you Roy! Certainly the plug for Christianity...Thank you Roy! Certainly the plug for Christianity is well taken. <br /><br />I heard a beautiful song in a Catholic Mass last week. I'm not Catholic, but sometimes go to spy on proceedings. The song, I believe, portrays Jesus speaking to the believer: <br /><br />"Here I am, standing right beside you.<br />Here I am, do not be afraid-<br />Here I am, waiting like a lover.<br />Here I am, I am here."<br /><br />Really, what else would you need to know about the Universe? You could just relax into the arms of Jesus, and things would go just fine. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-12736992479935725872018-02-08T11:00:51.774-08:002018-02-08T11:00:51.774-08:00Howdy Anony,
You wrote: "Are the contemplati...Howdy Anony,<br /><br />You wrote: "Are the contemplative chasing chimeras and delusions, or are they truly gaining useful information within their reveries, trances, dreams, meditations, chanting, and the like?"<br /><br />Who knows? There is no way to validate their conclusions. As I wrote: "for any set of data, or observations, there is an infinite number of formulations that fit the observations." There is a very simple mathematical proof of this assertion. I'd be more than happy to show it if you want.<br /><br />The two major impediments to determining "the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything to be the number 42," are uncertainty (Heisenberg) and complexity.<br /><br />"In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities[1] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known."<br /><br />Don't worry if that seems a bit confusing. The practical implication is that our methodology used to examine the fundamentals of the universe is like throwing a bowling ball through the window of a Pottery Barn then trying to figure out what was in there by listening to the sounds. Do it enough times and you might figure out the size of the crockery but you'll never know if they were decorated in a floral pattern.<br /><br />The second problem is complexity. I could refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory, but that would be unkindly. Instead I offer a familiar example to hint at the problem.<br /><br />We are all familiar with the byte - 8 bits that represent characters. Bytes come in groups - kilobytes (1024), megabytes (1024 kilobytes), gigabytes (1024 megabytes)... A kilobyte of characters is about 13 lines of typewritten text. So I'm going to ask you to guess how long it would take your computer, at 3 billion operations a second, to cycle through all combinations of a kilobyte of memory.<br /><br />Wrong! The answer is 1.09e+2439 times the life of the universe. That is, 1 followed by 2,439 zeroes.<br /><br />The universe is mysterious, unknowable. So, what's a poor girl to do? Open your eyes. There is one thing that the happiest places on earth have in common - Christianity. Is Christianity true? In all that matters - health, wealth, happiness - it is the clear winner.<br />Roy Lofquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16536815900678298041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-26248306259347921732018-02-08T10:56:27.145-08:002018-02-08T10:56:27.145-08:00Roy Lofquist "We generally hew to the princip...Roy Lofquist "We generally hew to the principle of William of Ockham that the simplest explanation is "correct" but that is misleading - it is simply the most tractable, easiest to understand. It is not in any way a proof of causation."<br /><br />True. One thing that's always bugged me about ol' Will's razor, or at least with how it is often used, is that it's often invoked as a means of declaring that you already know all that needs to be known, and that your presumption of 'what it's for' is also correct. Either presumption is fully able to leave you looking like an ass in the end, and if both, a really big ass (see our aninnymouse comments for reference). <br /><br />For instance, ask the tenured about what the purpose of a presidential election is, and they'll likely say "So the People! can elect their president..." which is at the very least, doubly wrong. And Ockham's ghost is often invoked to discredit the electoral college, as being too complicated. <br /><br />'Logic'ing, in the absence of metaphysics, is often the delight of Ockham's Razor... and we really ought to cut it out.<br /><br />P.S. I really like your 'Hamlet's Scrabble'.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-8601491904140537522018-02-08T10:07:44.041-08:002018-02-08T10:07:44.041-08:00Yes !
Excellent & delightful. Thanks...Yes !<br /><br />Excellent & delightful. Thanks...common sense bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126201121910646802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-60171989540982996492018-02-08T09:13:56.731-08:002018-02-08T09:13:56.731-08:00Hello Roy, thanks for the well written and insight...Hello Roy, thanks for the well written and insightful comment. <br /><br />Your sentiment, "I can't imagine anything more boring than understanding the universe" apparently doesn't apply to many scientists, as you've noted. And then there are the mystic, seer, shaman, yogin, sadhu, mendicant monks, etc. Collectively they form the "contemplative" line of inquiry. They believe they can hack the Mother Lode of Data by defeating the sensory firewall. They apparently do not find the prospect boring.<br /><br />Are the contemplative chasing chimeras and delusions, or are they truly gaining useful information within their reveries, trances, dreams, meditations, chanting, and the like?<br /><br />I know one investor who makes obscene amounts of money while seeming to be an airhead. Her method, she says, is accomplished by viewing the future prices of stock as if they were displayed on a computer screen, whilst she is in reverie. Hmmmmm...I don't know. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-55447915151030357642018-02-08T08:40:56.664-08:002018-02-08T08:40:56.664-08:00Agreed. And certainly there is nothing wrong with...Agreed. And certainly there is nothing wrong with science! But -- like everything else, from drugs to video games -- there is a huge difference between we having it and it having us. It reduces us from subject to object.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00911613613759942690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19918077151407560012018-02-08T05:52:38.126-08:002018-02-08T05:52:38.126-08:00Yes, well said.Yes, well said.juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-46138898650151020632018-02-08T00:03:11.347-08:002018-02-08T00:03:11.347-08:00Howdy. Although I visit here every day I don't...Howdy. Although I visit here every day I don't comment very often so I ask your indulgence.<br /><br />Bob writes "The question before the bus is whether we need math, or logic, or some special science in order to understand the totality of existence,". I think this short (3 minute) video of Richard Feynman is particularly germane to the discussion. When Feynman talks about physics think natural philosophy.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes<br /><br />Feynman illuminates a dichotomy that spans millennia - first articulated by Plato, who taught that the world could be understood by thinking about it, and Aristotle who said that the world was so complicated that we can only reach understanding by what we actually observe. The Platonic method, the inspiration for theoreticians, can lead to truly ridiculous conclusions unless we have a way to close the loop. Again, we turn to Feynman (1 minute):<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY<br /><br />What can I say? Four minutes of Feynman equals about two semesters at MIT.<br /><br />Way too much of modern science is purely speculative. There's no way to close the loop. In the formulation of Karl Popper, the premises are not falsifiable. This is primarily because as Bob says "Always remember that doctrines that explain the higher by means of the lower are appendices of a magician’s rule book. Any reductionistic science is obviously a linguistic rabbit bulled out of an asshat."<br /><br />My favorite exposition of this, actually made up by me, is: The reduction of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is a rather large Scrabble set. OK, genius, let's see you make something worthwhile out of that pile. For those of you who are familiar with calculus it's as if we knew differentiation but had no clue about integration. <br /><br />Bob again: "But In philosophy nothing is easier than to be consistent. Here again, Gödel's theorems tell us that a logical system can be consistent or complete, but not both." <br /><br />The most common justification for speculative "science" is that it explains so much. It just makes sense. But, and this is the key point of my blatherings, KEY POINT, for any set of data, or observations, there is an infinite number of formulations that fit the observations. We generally hew to the principle of William of Ockham that the simplest explanation is "correct" but that is misleading - it is simply the most tractable, easiest to understand. It is not in any way a proof of causation.<br /><br />In summary, Bob has the right of it - metaphysics. Totally mysterious. I like it like that. I can't imagine anything more boring than understanding the universe.<br />Roy Lofquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16536815900678298041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91049790853492305942018-02-07T15:06:57.469-08:002018-02-07T15:06:57.469-08:00Hi Julie:
What's an SJW? What are Jesus Willi...Hi Julie:<br /><br />What's an SJW? What are Jesus Willies? <br /><br />I am unfamiliar with these terms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-33546468186638214832018-02-07T13:37:50.122-08:002018-02-07T13:37:50.122-08:00I don't think blogging is dead, it just doesn&...I don't think blogging is dead, it just doesn't have the wild popularity that other platforms do; it's more difficult to start a viral frenzy with a blog than with a provocative tweet or facebook post. Or video where you square off against SJWs and they make themselves look ridiculous. Everybody loves to see someone poking the bear with a stick, and winning.<br /><br />As far as Peterson, I get the impression that metaphysically he is now where you were back when this thing started. Or maybe, I was then like a lot of his young followers are today, a recovering atheist with the Jesus willies looking for a way up and in that isn't just a (from the outside) hokey sort of Christianity. He happens to be the teacher that a lot of people need right now.<br /><br />As Ted noted, we've made a few more revolutions around the spiral in the past decade+; what seems obvious from here tends to look different from lower points of view.<br />juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-15580347235961873332018-02-07T13:16:19.452-08:002018-02-07T13:16:19.452-08:00That's true. Blogging is dead, I am told.That's true. Blogging is dead, I am told.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00911613613759942690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-65994931017620564852018-02-07T13:13:21.270-08:002018-02-07T13:13:21.270-08:00Also Peterson has the advantage of having a bunch ...Also Peterson has the advantage of having a bunch of his academic lectures videotaped and uploaded to YouTube. I don't believe it is his writings that got him popular, but it grew from the young folks who watched his youtube videos. Blogs are losing ground to video these days.tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07354048695798015131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-23942027125858801862018-02-07T13:03:35.806-08:002018-02-07T13:03:35.806-08:00Bob: My sense is Peterson uses secular psychology ...Bob: My sense is Peterson uses secular psychology as a gateway. He admits to being a Christian and acknowledges the metaphysical is real, but he couches his supernatural ideas gently (often in Jungian terminology). I'm not saying you're more blunt, but there is more clarity to where you stand that may be too far of a leap for many to reach.tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07354048695798015131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-32154298357177066502018-02-07T12:54:19.099-08:002018-02-07T12:54:19.099-08:00One thing that puzzles me is that Jordan Peterson ...One thing that puzzles me is that Jordan Peterson is wildly popular over at Instapundit, where I often chime in with attempted witty one-liners. However, whenever I make any kind of One Cosmos type metaphysical/theological/Davila- or Schuon-esque point, I tend to get jumped on. People either misunderstand, and/or it provokes an argument that goes nowhere. I wonder what it is about Peterson's spiel that is so appealing, and mine that is so not? I don't expect mine to be popular, but Peterson somehow gets away with saying similar things, and folks eat it up. What gives?Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00911613613759942690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-5044478953658035922018-02-07T12:07:41.759-08:002018-02-07T12:07:41.759-08:00Not everyone is called to be a ringleader, thank g...Not everyone is called to be a ringleader, thank goodness. I don't at all envy Peterson his fame; it looks exhausting, for a host of reasons.<br /><br /><i>In other words, we begin with God, not end there as a result of some syllogism or equation.</i><br /><br />I find it interesting sometimes, particularly in Bible study, that even there - or perhaps, even <i>particularly</i> there, people have a tremendous difficulty in squaring what <i>Is</i> with what we think it <i>Oughta Be</i>. They look horizontally, and wonder how the surface we see around us can have anything to do with the vertical from whence it emanates. To look up, even for those who believes, is every day an act of faith.juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-16726330416825409022018-02-07T11:59:59.003-08:002018-02-07T11:59:59.003-08:00That's Jordan Peterson's fear: that his su...That's Jordan Peterson's fear: that his surreal brush with celebrity over the past 18 months will end in an unguarded comment his detractors will use to demolish him.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00911613613759942690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-28131449712366067542018-02-07T11:57:05.513-08:002018-02-07T11:57:05.513-08:00No offense taken. I just feel I would come to regr...No offense taken. I just feel I would come to regret notoriety. There are too many things in the archive that could easily be used by the uncomprehending or unscrupulous to annihilate poor Bob. Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00911613613759942690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1766352926571230082018-02-07T11:50:50.688-08:002018-02-07T11:50:50.688-08:00If you are content to rest on your laurels, then d...If you are content to rest on your laurels, then disregard my comment. I think I gave unwanted advice, pardon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76530580780454750042018-02-07T11:47:37.140-08:002018-02-07T11:47:37.140-08:00Eh. The circus is doing fine without me.Eh. The circus is doing fine without me.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00911613613759942690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79577703320986178452018-02-07T11:45:34.584-08:002018-02-07T11:45:34.584-08:00This is a fine post, pure philosophy. I don't ...This is a fine post, pure philosophy. I don't believe there is anyone who manages to be as coherent and entertaining while delivering on this topic as yourself. You might want to consider writing another book (it can be a sequel to your first, to expand what you've learned and thought about since, or depart from it in a new direction). Consider supporting it (and your previous book), by giving some talks.<br /><br />The Bible speaks about not keeping your light under a bushel basket, or some such. I know you've expended considerable effort on communicating, but you could notch it up some. Since your current profession (psychology) seems to be a wasteland for you, declare yourself a full on philosopher, and get it going on all six cylinders.<br /><br />One way to achieve notoriety, albeit while pandering to the public eye, is to outrage the leftist gatekeepers on some core topic. You could press a class-action lawsuit against the educational system, or some such stunt. <br /><br />Once your on the mass audience radar, then you can purvey your witty wisdom and everyone wins. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com