Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:09:28 -0000

 Patrick Reany:
>dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
 
>>
>> Because you have not given me a reason that the universe should
>> be incomprehensible.
>
>Let's assume for the sake of argument that Nature is comprehensible.
>Theories are human inventions, in any case, and thus are not
>"natural."

  Why are human theories not natural? Did humans originate in a
different universe than this one?

>People can debate theories, but Nature debates nothing, so far as we
>know.

  OK. Debates between human theories can be settled by determing with
which theory nature agrees.

>All I'm saying is that we ought to form a logical
>distinction between descriptions in the form of theories about Nature
>and about Nature itself, even if the world is comprehensible.
 
  Why should there be any distinction between nature and theory that
describes it completely? Unless nature is conscious, then the rules
by which nature operates, define nature.

>> >If our description is incomplete, that doesn't mean that I fault Nature.
>>
>> I was not discussing an incomplete theory. We already have those.
>
>I was referring to the indefinite future, not just now.
 
  Your point being what?

>> >It's really the fault of deductive systems in the first place.
>>
>> Then science should simply give up since there is onviously no way
>> of implementing an abstraction deduced from a theoretical argument
>> as technology that works in reality.
>
>??

??

Relevant Pages

  • Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?
    ... >> Why are human theories not natural? ... >> different universe than this one? ... >Any human artifact must be created within nature. ... >However theories in and of themselves are not the nature they describe. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?
    ... >> Why are human theories not natural? ... >> different universe than this one? ... >Any human artifact must be created within nature. ... >However theories in and of themselves are not the nature they describe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?
    ... >> Because you have not given me a reason that the universe should ... >Let's assume for the sake of argument that Nature is comprehensible. ... Why are human theories not natural? ... >> I was not discussing an incomplete theory. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Letter to the Editor: God set the universal clock
    ... > Without such a force and laws to control it, there would be a state of chaos. ... > But the universe is not in chaos, for all heavenly bodies follow an orderly ... God designed all this and set up laws for the operation of all things ... The non-chaotic aspects of nature are due to the laws of nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: William Paley
    ... religious arguments are by Cleanthes reduced to experience, ... this nature is presented, we draw without hesitation the accustomed inference. ... that the universe bears such a resemblance to a ... fancy would be upon an equal footing; nor could he assign any just reason why ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading