Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half...
From: Scott Stephens (scottxs_at_comcast.net)
Date: 11/07/04
- Next message: Scott Stephens: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Previous message: Robert Baer: "Re: Lead Based Solder Alternatives"
- In reply to: Mark Fergerson: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Next in thread: Rich The Philosophizer: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Reply: Rich The Philosophizer: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Reply: Mark Fergerson: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:56:36 GMT
Mark Fergerson wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
> > These are the kinds of questions I'm looking for the answer to.
>
> You're making the dangerous assumption that "the answer" exists. That
> way lies religion (pun intended).
Both science and religion are based on a premise.
The premise of religion is "because God says", so to know why,
understand God.
The premise of science is the universe acts according to principles
amenable to logic and reason.
Perhaps it could be said that in the course of Nature taking the path of
least action to thermaly equalize, structures and systems of particles
emerged which have the emergent properties of consciousness and reason.
Living systems which optimize their logic and reason (philosophy) the
way lower organisms optimize metabolic processes, the way lower
molecules crystalize, the way lower particles form atoms and molecules...
So Nature gives us Reason, Reason gives us 1st religion "because God
says so" (based on crude reasoning and magical thinking, which is cheap
for me to say inlight of my 21st century education), then later science
gives us more powerful tools (which we can use to refute much of
religion's sick magical reasoning & scientific conclusions).
It reduces to the Anthropic Principle - if the universe wasn't such as
it is, we wouldn't be conscious to examine it. But that doesn't tell us
how or why the universe is, just that it is.
What if the principles of science change tomorrow, and the space-time
manifold becomes chaotic? Who says the fundamental constants of physics,
or how they relate to each other can't change? What if the value of Pi
were to change?
-- Scott ********************************** DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon! http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/ POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce **********************************
- Next message: Scott Stephens: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Previous message: Robert Baer: "Re: Lead Based Solder Alternatives"
- In reply to: Mark Fergerson: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Next in thread: Rich The Philosophizer: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Reply: Rich The Philosophizer: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Reply: Mark Fergerson: "Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
