RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   
  Topic: Methodological Naturalism, What is it? What are the alternatives?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,21:30   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 21 2010,16:13)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 21 2010,12:37)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 21 2010,08:58)

I read way too much R. Buckminster Fuller in my wayward youth.

:) sounds pretty wayward alright.

You have NO idea. Home made dodecahedral tensegrities, hours with Synergetics I and II, debauchery under the ASM geodesic dome...
[snip picture]


   
Quote
It just occurred to me to ask, is methological naturalism identical to materialist reductionism? And, if so, are you saying it can't be used to study god because it is limited to cause and effect chains of observable phenomena or because those cause and effect chains are the entirety of the universe within which we operate?

That would better describe philosophical naturalism.

:) Well. That explains a lot. Wild. Totally wild.

Were your parents professors? We should swap stories sometime. It's a small group that knows the true damage done to a kid's ability to be normal as an adult...  :p

To stay on topic, I also have to say that I've never managed to get a single quality assignable to god out of a believer so it's hard to know whether a method could find it.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:46   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 21 2010,21:30)
I've never managed to get a single quality assignable to god out of a believer....

That's easy: existence!

I suppose next you'll be complaining about the definition of existence. Sheesh!

;)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2010,17:19   

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Super.pdf

I don't think you can investigate the supernatural, personally.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2010,18:22   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2010,17:19)
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Super.pdf

I don't think you can investigate the supernatural, personally.

That's pretty good, but Stenger needs to read Edward Tufte on PowerPoint excess.  That is some crap design.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2010,20:53   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2010,15:19)
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Super.pdf

I don't think you can investigate the supernatural, personally.

Can you do it by proxy, then?

What about with waldoes?

...or you could just send a grad student.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2010,06:23   

As things are quiet enough for postal Mornington Crescent could I ask if any of this makes sense  
Quote
Current reality (as perceived today with all the accumulated knowledge of mankind) is everything that is known. The boundaries of this domain are easily defined though what is contained is rapidly changing and, I would suggest, expanding.

Ultimate or potential reality is everything that exists that is capable of being perceived by current or future humankind from Earth. The boundary of this domain is the past and future light cone (I doubt it makes much practical difference if I say of the Earth or of our galaxy). I would suggest the limit of exploration into past events is the Big Bang and the limit into the future will be the Sun’s metamorphosis into a red giant, unless some earlier catastrophe intervenes.

Then there is a domain that is outside current and ultimate reality which I would like to call the imaginary domain. (complex numbers, argand diagrams and the Mandlebrot set seem to fit)

So bacteria were, prior to their discovery, in the ultimate reality domain and were engulfed by the expanding boundary of the current reality domain. (All things that are real exist but not all things that are real are within the domain of current reality, yes I get the black crow concept.)

What about extraterrestrial lifeforms. They are certainly not in the domain of current reality. Are they in the domain of ultimate reality? We don't know that but we have ideas that guide our search. The domain of ultimate reality is, I assert, contained in (cannot be bigger than) the same envelope as the knowable universe and thus has the same physical properties (or laws, if you prefer). This limits the possibility of what a discoverable alien could consist of.

Other universes with other physical constants, life beyond the boundaries of the knowable universe, what happened before the Big bang would all seem inaccessible to us now and ever.


If not:

Mudchute!

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2010,06:27   

And would it be fair to claim that anything in the domain of ultimate reality is amenable to the scientific method of study.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2010,08:53   

the trouble with testing for [supernatural_1] is that [supernatural_2] might get in the way.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2010,14:25   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2010,03:53)
the trouble with testing for [supernatural_1] is that [supernatural_2] might get in the way.

Hi Rich

is that a reply to me?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2010,14:35   

Is the supernatural part of 'ultimate reality'?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2010,15:44   

It's included in ultimate woo.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,05:09   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2010,09:35)
Is the supernatural part of 'ultimate reality'?

No. Ultimate reality (from our point of view) is the domain of everything that can potentially be observed, i. e. up to but not before the Big Bang, not beyond the death of the Sun (unless colonization is attempted) and the limit set by the speed of light. Current reality can expand to these limits but not beyond. The imaginary domain can be everything else or nothing else depending on your point of view. I was rereading Hawking's "Brief History of Time" recently and that was how I made sense of his thoughts. It's not going down well with Biologos either.   :(

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,05:11   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 23 2010,10:44)
It's included in ultimate woo.

So my piece doesn't make sense at all or is there something that is at least wrong?

ETA anyone feel free to comment!

/desparate

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,06:38   

Too quick to be entirely coherent, but I'm outta time:

Given that you define the boundary between ultimate reality and the imaginary relative to possible human discovery (e.g., as limited by horizons such as the light cone from earth), it seems to me that there may be other equally insurmountable horizons of other kinds. For example, there may be cognitive horizons, beyond which lie events and processes that are inexpressible and unimaginable in any human language or other representational system of which humans are capable of using, mathematical or otherwise, individual or collective, and will forever remain so.

Is there difficulty in positing that there may be "real" phenomena that lie beyond such an horizon, and hence will remain forever and inherently undiscovered? If not, is not your definition tied too closely to what human beings can discover? Our cognitive powers are evolutionarily contingent, after all.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,06:47   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 24 2010,05:11)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 23 2010,10:44)
It's included in ultimate woo.

So my piece doesn't make sense at all or is there something that is at least wrong?

ETA anyone feel free to comment!

/desparate

Makes sense to me. My comment was about the supernatural, which I associate with ignorance and fraud.

By ignorance, I mean the default or initial state of knowledge regarding any phenomena.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,10:53   

midwifetoad:


Quote
Makes sense to me. My comment was about the supernatural, which I associate with ignorance and fraud.


That's a relief. The pejorative associations of supernatural and the ambiguity of  natural is partly why I suggest real and imaginary instead

ETA clarity.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,11:06   

Quote
For example, there may be cognitive horizons, beyond which lie events and processes that are inexpressible and unimaginable in any human language or other representational system of which humans are capable of using, mathematical or otherwise, individual or collective, and will forever remain so.


Yes, indeed. But, how would we know? We only know what we know. But can we at least say collective accumulated human knowledge cannot reach beyond the physical limits of the universe. Or is that an open question? And is methodological naturalism, or shared and peer-reviewed human perception aided by instruments and experiments the only way of us knowing anything.

  
  46 replies since Feb. 08 2010,22:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]