Re: [OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half...

From: Mark Fergerson (nunya_at_biz.ness)
Date: 11/08/04 

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:14:34 -0700

Scott Stephens wrote:

> 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.

   Then, it tells you that you're incapable of that level of
understanding, so bend over and shut up.

> The premise of science is the universe acts according to
principles
> amenable to logic and reason.

   That's a _hypothesis_. So far, it's been borne out.

> 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.

   Sure, why not? Except, I'd insert "appear to" just before
"have the emergent properties...".

> 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...

   Careful, extending patterns is a very bad human habit.

> 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).

   Problem with religions is that they aren't amenable to
recursive analysis. Once you are given The Explanation,
you're supposed to nod (kneel, whatever) and shut the ***
up. Science requires you to keep asking "what causes _that_?"

> 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.

   That's a circular argument, not worth discussing. It's
easy to point out that we have exactly one example of how a
Universe works to examine, and speculations about variations
on the theme are just that; speculations.

> 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?

   We do know that most systems exhibit inertia; for pi or
any other so-called constant to change for such a large,
self-consistent system, there'd have to be a cause.
Postulate some?

   Mark L. Fergerson

Quantcast