Premise two-- part one
2) If the moral law is a real (and it is) and the Christ event did not happen the cosmos is inconsistent with itself.
This premise is really just a restatement of the so called problem of evil in terms that will apply to the scientific neopantheism of folks like Tippler Primrose and TP along with what I hope to show is the only possible solution to the dilemma.
In this formulation of the problem consistency equals goodness and evil is defined specifically as a violation of natural law and the Cosmos is God.
Since this premise is so controversial I will split it into three posts and take it backwards In this post I will deal with the consistency problem after that I will take some time to show that only the Christ event will satisfy as a solution and finally I will endeavor two show that folks like TP are themselves being inconsistent when they deny the reality of the moral law.
The importance of definitions
I believe it is obvious that if the moral law is real the Cosmos appears to be inconsistent (as we have defined it) let me elaborate
We see apparent violations of the moral law all around us every day both in ourselves and in others.
A natural law that is not valid at all times and all places is not a natural law (again as we have defined it).
Or to put it more precisely
To say that X(a law) is not X(invariable under given conditions) is clearly a contradiction and therefore inconsistent. (Once again see our agreed upon definitions)
Since we have already agreed the Cosmos will do what ever is necessary to be consistent we are left with a dilemma. Is the inconsistency in the natural laws that we see all around us inherent in the cosmos itself so that the cosmos itself can not determine that violations of the natural law have occurred or is the Cosmos powerless to prevent them when they happen? If the cosmos is unable to determine a violation has occurred or if the Cosmos is powerless to prevent violations of the natural law when they occur our first premise (The cosmos will do what ever is necessary to be consistent with itself.) is clearly false. As a consequence science and life itself for that matter would be impossible.
Takeing a cue from earlier pantheism (Buddhism) TP has suggested that any violations of the moral law we think we see are only apparent and not actual. Good and evil are mere illusions.
This explanation seems at first glance to have merit and allow us to escape our consistency dilemma. However the statement “Good and evil are mere illusions” is itself a statement of moral imperative equivalent to “apparent Evil is not Evil” and “Apparent Good is not Good”that is accourding to TP not always true (I will elaborate on this point further when I discuss the validity of the moral law.)
I believe the problem with the tactic of claiming that all good and evil are illusions comes into focus when we remember that we have defined evil as violations of natural law (any natural law will do.) If the moral law is real then violations of it are violations of natural law. According to our definition murder and a perpetual motion machine are equally evil.
We live in a world where evil is endemic.
We have only three options to deal with the apparent evil we see everywhere as far as I can tell.
Either
1) The Human mind is not equipped to determine whether an event is or is not a violation of natural law or not and science is impossible because we have no way of predicting the future. Any thing can be expected to happen at any time. Inconsistency rules.
or
2) The moral law is not Natural Law as we have defined it.
or
3) We need to look closer at the Cosmos so we can determine how it can be that an event appears to be evil (as we have defined it) but is not. to resolve the apparent inconsistency and take the cosmos off the hook.
Since I believe option one is unacceptable for both TP and myself. I will concern myself with the other two options in my coming posts.
I hope to demonstrate next that acceptance of the third option makes the Christ event fundamentally necessary.
And finally I think I can demonstrate that the moral law is a real natural law just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If TP will give me a sign I’ll move on
2) If the moral law is a real (and it is) and the Christ event did not happen the cosmos is inconsistent with itself.
This premise is really just a restatement of the so called problem of evil in terms that will apply to the scientific neopantheism of folks like Tippler Primrose and TP along with what I hope to show is the only possible solution to the dilemma.
In this formulation of the problem consistency equals goodness and evil is defined specifically as a violation of natural law and the Cosmos is God.
Since this premise is so controversial I will split it into three posts and take it backwards In this post I will deal with the consistency problem after that I will take some time to show that only the Christ event will satisfy as a solution and finally I will endeavor two show that folks like TP are themselves being inconsistent when they deny the reality of the moral law.
The importance of definitions
I believe it is obvious that if the moral law is real the Cosmos appears to be inconsistent (as we have defined it) let me elaborate
We see apparent violations of the moral law all around us every day both in ourselves and in others.
A natural law that is not valid at all times and all places is not a natural law (again as we have defined it).
Or to put it more precisely
To say that X(a law) is not X(invariable under given conditions) is clearly a contradiction and therefore inconsistent. (Once again see our agreed upon definitions)
Since we have already agreed the Cosmos will do what ever is necessary to be consistent we are left with a dilemma. Is the inconsistency in the natural laws that we see all around us inherent in the cosmos itself so that the cosmos itself can not determine that violations of the natural law have occurred or is the Cosmos powerless to prevent them when they happen? If the cosmos is unable to determine a violation has occurred or if the Cosmos is powerless to prevent violations of the natural law when they occur our first premise (The cosmos will do what ever is necessary to be consistent with itself.) is clearly false. As a consequence science and life itself for that matter would be impossible.
Takeing a cue from earlier pantheism (Buddhism) TP has suggested that any violations of the moral law we think we see are only apparent and not actual. Good and evil are mere illusions.
This explanation seems at first glance to have merit and allow us to escape our consistency dilemma. However the statement “Good and evil are mere illusions” is itself a statement of moral imperative equivalent to “apparent Evil is not Evil” and “Apparent Good is not Good”that is accourding to TP not always true (I will elaborate on this point further when I discuss the validity of the moral law.)
I believe the problem with the tactic of claiming that all good and evil are illusions comes into focus when we remember that we have defined evil as violations of natural law (any natural law will do.) If the moral law is real then violations of it are violations of natural law. According to our definition murder and a perpetual motion machine are equally evil.
We live in a world where evil is endemic.
We have only three options to deal with the apparent evil we see everywhere as far as I can tell.
Either
1) The Human mind is not equipped to determine whether an event is or is not a violation of natural law or not and science is impossible because we have no way of predicting the future. Any thing can be expected to happen at any time. Inconsistency rules.
or
2) The moral law is not Natural Law as we have defined it.
or
3) We need to look closer at the Cosmos so we can determine how it can be that an event appears to be evil (as we have defined it) but is not. to resolve the apparent inconsistency and take the cosmos off the hook.
Since I believe option one is unacceptable for both TP and myself. I will concern myself with the other two options in my coming posts.
I hope to demonstrate next that acceptance of the third option makes the Christ event fundamentally necessary.
And finally I think I can demonstrate that the moral law is a real natural law just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If TP will give me a sign I’ll move on
posted by Fifth Monarchy Man at
3:20 PM
16 Comments:
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Remember when I said...
"But understand I would suggest there are no inherent things such as time or even observable scientific laws in something outside our universe. You would have to even present a compelling argument that consistency is an appropriate presumption for this metaphysical realm." in reference to your definition of Cosmos?
The observable UNIVERSE is what appears to be consistent with itself and has natural laws. I suggest you are making an unwarranted leap to presume things outside the universe (i.e. Cosmos) must adhere to laws or even be consistent.
The unobservable Cosmos is the metaphysical realm where all things are possible. Metaphysically, it is possible that 1+1=3 is true even if 1+1=2 is also true. The act of me describing it shows that it is metaphysically possible. Such an inconsistency might be “evil” in our observable universe, but I suggest that doesn’t automatically translate to the Cosmos in general.
Contrary to your presumption, when it comes to the metaphysical Cosmos I feel the “…Human mind is not equipped to determine whether an event is or is not a violation of natural law”. Science is possible only in the observable universe because science is based on observations. Philosophy/religion is the discipline that has the tools to deal with unobservable Truths, something science isn't equipped to do.
In other words, NOMA.
I believe we can’t know the philosophical Truth because “inconsistency rules” in the metaphysical Cosmos.
Fortunately for our sanity, it appears the universe in which we live is determined to do whatever it takes to be consistent with itself.
I am sorry if I didn’t voice the Cosmos/Universe distinction strong enough earlier.
Hopefully, this won’t force too much backtracking.
TP said:
The observable UNIVERSE is what appears to be consistent with itself and has natural laws.
I say:
But the universe does not appear to be consistent with itself we see natural(moral) laws that are apparently violated every day would you not agree?
you say:
The unobservable Cosmos is the metaphysical realm where all things are possible.
I say:
That is not exactly the case. It is not possible that the cosmos would not do what ever is necessary for the universe to be consistent. Remember the first premise stated from a weak anthropic view. A Cosmos must be consistent In order for us to observe it.
Or
Only a Cosmos that is consistent will contain observers.
You say:
I believe we can’t know the philosophical Truth because “inconsistency rules” in the metaphysical Cosmos.
I say:
Yet we must presuppose a cosmos that creates consistency for science
you say:
Fortunately for our sanity, it appears the universe in which we live is determined to do whatever it takes to be consistent with itself.
I say:
but it does not appear to be consistent when it comes to moral laws.
Do you understand my point?
Whatever science there is in the Weak Anthropic principle, I suggest it only applies to the observable universe, not the metaphysical Cosmos in general.
Of course the philosophical aspects of Anthropic Principles can apply to the metaphysical Cosmos, but then such hypotheses can't be scientifically tested, only argued.
To your direct questions...
But the universe does not appear to be consistent with itself we see natural(moral) laws that are apparently violated every day would you not agree?
The closest thing I see to a natural law not being applied consistently is via Quantum Mechanics. As I have indicated earlier, these kinds of "violations" means we change our definitions of the scientific law.
We can set up repeatable quantum experiments to demonstrate the appearance of illogic regardless of the philosophical outlook of the scientist performing the experiment. The experimental results are the same whether the scientists involved believe in Allah, Jehovah, Many Worlds or Copenhagen.
Is the same true for experiments involving Moral Law?
There are people who claim the destruction of the twin towers and the flooding of New Orleans was a CONFIRMATION of moral law, not a violation of it.
So, no, I do not see any clear violations of natural laws occurring. At best, I see a lack of scientific understanding on our part.
Remember the first premise stated from a weak anthropic view. A Cosmos must be consistent In order for us to observe it.
Or
Only a Cosmos that is consistent will contain observers.
While it may be argued that it is scientifically supportable in our observable universe, it is just a metaphysical presumption for the Cosmos (per the definition of the term being used here).
You didn't address my 1+1=3 situation. Would it be easier to discuss PI? Are you claiming the value of PI must the consistent for all possible universes in the metaphysical Cosmos?
It appears that PI must always be PI in our observable universe, but in the unobservable Cosmos, how can we know?
Yet we must presuppose a cosmos that creates consistency for science.
Science can only deal with the observable universe. It has little or no usefulness concerning a metaphysical Cosmos.
but [the observable universe] does not appear to be consistent when it comes to moral laws.
You have yet to demonstrate that scientifically. So far you have been employing the philosophical tool set.
By my philosophy, you and I can hold contrary (i.e. inconsistent) philosophical views with both of us being right.
But since you reject NOMA, the burden is on you to demonstrate that there is a single universal Truth detectable both scientifically and philosophically.
I wish you luck in meeting that burden.
Hey TP
good afternoon
you said:
The closest thing I see to a natural law not being applied consistently is via Quantum Mechanics. As I have indicated earlier, these kinds of "violations" means we change our definitions of the scientific law.
I say:
I completely agree and will address this when we get to discussing whether the moral law is real
You say:
Is the same true for experiments involving Moral Law?
I say:
Yes as will be demonstrated when we get to discussing the specifics of moral law
You say:
So, no, I do not see any clear violations of natural laws occurring. At best, I see a lack of scientific understanding on our part.
I say
I did not say we see "clear" violations I said we see “apparent” violations I agree that lack of understanding is a possible explanation for those observations. In fact I hope to further your understanding of theses events. Again stay tuned.
You say:
While it may be argued that it (necessary consistency) is scientifically supportable in our observable universe, it is just a metaphysical presumption for the Cosmos (per the definition of the term being used here).
I say:
I agree but it is necessary that the Cosmos makes our universe consistent do you understand my point?
You say:
It appears that PI must always be PI in our observable universe, but in the unobservable Cosmos, how can we know?
I say:
We can’t know scientifically and it does not matter. It only matters that the Cosmos will do whatever is necessary for Pi to be Pi in our universe. That is what I mean by a consistant Cosmos
You say:
Science can only deal with the observable universe. It has little or no usefulness concerning a metaphysical Cosmos.
I say:
life is impossible in a Cosmos that is inconsistent.
Perhaps I should introduce a new definition to insure we are on the same page
a Consistent Cosmos.......one that insures consistency in the visible universe.
You say:
By my philosophy, you and I can hold contrary (i.e. inconsistent) philosophical views with both of us being right.
I say:
This is also a moral imperative equivalent to “contrary views are not evil".(much more to this when we get to discussing the moral law)
please try and stay focused on the point I am making at this point namely that in order to be consistent a cosmos must insure consistency.
IOW It is a law for the Cosmos that the Cosmos must insure that laws are universally applied in our universe.
This might be easer for you to understand if you use the more explicit definition I just offered.
Let me know if we are in agreement or where you still having difficulties with my point.
Peace
Hey TP
I modified my definition slightly in the interest of total clarity.
a Consistent Cosmos.......one that insures consistency in the visible universe (if life is present).
It is obvious to me that a visible universe contains observers but just in case
Peace
Good Evening,
Fortunately, it doesn't look like my Cosmos/Universe distinction is causing you too much trouble. At least not yet. This is good.
You wrote...
"...it is necessary that the Cosmos makes our universe consistent do you understand my point?"
As I have hinted earlier. I consider a conjecture that the universe's consistancy is a requirement (or even a "purpose") is a philosophical viewpoint, not a scientific hypothesis.
There is a subtle difference between hypothesizing that the value PI does not change versus declaring PI can not or must not change.
One is based on scientific observation, the other is based on philosophical presumption.
You say...
"...life is impossible in a Cosmos that is inconsistent."
You might convince me that it would be difficult for life to exist in an inconsistent universe but the Cosmos can be inconsistent and still contain an isolated bubble of consistency that is our observable universe. Note, the Anthropic Principle doesn't say the universe has to be totally consistent, just consistent enough for life to exist.
The metaphysical Cosmos is timeless and lawless per the definition as I understand it.
Anything I can think of is possible in the metaphysical Cosmos, and since I can conceive of illogical and inconsistent things, I argue the metaphysical Cosmos is inconsistent. However, since the Cosmos is unobservable, by definition, we can never know the Truth. (NOMA again).
You wrote...
"a Consistent Cosmos.......one that insures consistency in the visible universe.
...
please try and stay focused on the point I am making at this point namely that in order to be consistent a cosmos must insure consistency.
IOW It is a law for the Cosmos that the Cosmos must insure that laws are universally applied in our universe."
For the sake argument, I will agree to the concept that it is possible that something unobservable and external to our universe is fueling its consistency through undetectable means. However, that doesn't mean the Cosmos itself is consistent. I would even go so far as to argue that the only way a Cosmos could maintain a consistent universe is by being inconsistent in much the same way that refrigerators generate heat when keeping things cool.
One of the many Truths I hold is that the purpose of our observable universe is to be consistent with itself. This is a philosophical presumption which I can't know for certain.
If tomorrow "...the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" (Joshua 10:13) I would suffer a crisis of faith. My day-to-day philosophy is to presume there are no inconsistent miracles in violation of my presumption that the universe is consistent.
While I hold on to my own philosophical Truth for sanity sake, I am wise enough to recognize other people's Truths are just as valid as mine for unverifiable presumptions.
Hey TP
How’s it going? Yesterday I composed a long and extremely well thought out response to your comment but for some reason it disappeared into cyber space so I guess I post a quick mediocre response instead. I hope it’s enough
You said:
You might convince me that it would be difficult for life to exist in an inconsistent universe but the Cosmos can be inconsistent and still contain an isolated bubble of consistency that is our observable universe.
I say:
You and I can’t with authority comment on what is happening in the unobservable part of the Cosmos except to say that it is required to make all universes with observers consistent.
You say
Note, the Anthropic Principle doesn't say the universe has to be totally consistent, just consistent enough for life to exist
I say:
Good point. When we finish our discussion on the moral law it will be up to you to determine how much evil (inconsistency) you can “live” with.
You say:
For the sake argument, I will agree to the concept that it is possible that something unobservable and external to our universe is fueling its consistency through undetectable means. However, that doesn't mean the Cosmos itself is consistent.
I say:
Yes it does, if you define a consistent cosmos the way I have done “a Consistent Cosmos.......one that insures consistency in the visible universe (if life is present).” If our universe is consistent then the Cosmos is consistent by definition Do you understand?
You say:
I would even go so far as to argue that the only way a Cosmos could maintain a consistent universe is by being inconsistent in much the same way that refrigerators generate heat when keeping things cool.
I say:
I really like this line of speculation and you will see that it is with a few modifications what I will attempt to argue in my next post. That is if you will agree with me that it is a requirement that the cosmos will make all observable universes consistent.
You say
If tomorrow "...the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" (Joshua 10:13) I would suffer a crisis of faith.
I say:
I would too if I interpreted this passage the way you seem to be doing. That is my whole thrust here I’m trying to show that if an observable universe is inconsistent that is if natural laws are not universally enforced something is amiss in the Cosmos.
Get it?
I think we are getting to a point of understanding each other's views.
However, I am uncomfortable with your use of the term "consistent cosmos". I think it is causing confusion through equivocation. We could define the term "ham sandwich" to include turkey, but that doesn't mean turkey is ham.
For example, when I said "...that doesn't mean the Cosmos itself is consistent."
You disagreed based entirely on your definition even though I went out of my way to avoid using the term you defined. Later you seem to agree the cosmos could be inconsistent.
I suggest the Cosmos, as we defined it, is timeless and lawless. It doesn't "have to" do anything. It doesn't have to be, itself, consistant. It doesn't even have to be logical.
Scientific observations suggest our observable universe is consistent.
It is a philosophical presumption that the universe's consistency is inherent. As in it has always been consistent and will continue to be consistent.
You are offering a philosophical presumption that our universe's consistency is being enforced externally.
Since I can't know the Truth of things outside the universe, I agree that it is possible.
For some reason you feel it is necessary to suggest this inherent consistency must apply to any and all universes that contain life.
Since I can't know the Truth of things outside the universe, I agree that it is also possible. However, I do not see the logic of this presumption.
All we know is that OUR universe appears to be consistent and contains life. That could be just a coincidence. However, I tend to believe that it is probable that the "purpose" of our universe is to do whatever it takes to exist and be consistent. That could include creating life, even intelligent life.
I am ready to move on to the next step if you are.
P.S. my sympathies for your lost work. I hate it when that happens to me.
Hey TP
You Said:
I suggest the Cosmos, as we defined it, is timeless and lawless. It doesn't "have to" do anything. It doesn't have to be, itself, consistant. It doesn't even have to be logical.
I say:
This is not a question of what the
Cosmos ‘has to do’ I agree it does not “have to do” anything. My argument is about what it can do. The Cosmos can’t produce an inconsistent universe with observers anymore than it can produce a square circle do you disagree with this? If you do please explain how the cosmos can produce such a thing.
Peace
Hi FMM,
You asked...
The Cosmos can’t produce an inconsistent universe with observers anymore than it can produce a square circle do you disagree with this?
I disagree on multiple levels.
First, as I said earlier, Anthropic principles do not say the universe must be totally consistent, just consistent enough for life.
Second, metaphysically, square circles are possible for no other reason than you just imagined the possibility.
In our universe, observations demonstrate that circles are not squares and the circumference of circles relate to the diameter by a relationship called PI. I can easily imagine universes where the value of PI isn’t constant. I could even imagine a universe where a curve is actually the right angle of a square.
This is why I continue to mention the I consider the metaphysical cosmos to be lawless to the point that it is inherently inconsistent and illogical.
I embrace of NOMA is for sanity control. I can focus on understanding the observable universe while simultaneously holding philosophical discussions like this one. I can earnestly search for knowledge even though I realize I can never know the Truth.
Hey TP,
you said:
First, as I said earlier, Anthropic principles do not say the universe must be totally consistent, just consistent enough for life.
I say:
Since we haven’t yet determined how much inconsistency you can live with I will give you that one for now and modify my remarks to say
The Cosmos can’t produce a universe with observers that is inconsistent beyond the threshold in which said observers can exist anymore than it can produce a square circle.
I hope you will agree that this statement answers your first objection
You said:
Second, metaphysically, square circles are possible for no other reason than you just imagined the possibility.
I say:
I did not imagine the possibility I pointed out a definitional impossibility
look at definitions
Square..... a geometric figure with four right angles and four equal sides
Circle...... a two-dimensional geometric figure formed of a curved line surrounding a center point, every point of the line being an equal distance from the center point
It is definitionally impossible for a square to be a circle if you don’t understand this all dialogue on any subject is impossible.
You said:
In our universe, observations demonstrate that circles are not squares and the circumference of circles relate to the diameter by a relationship called PI. I can easily imagine universes where the value of PI isn’t constant.
I say:
The value of PI might vary in your imagination but a circle can never be a square even in your imagination if it could then all communication is impossible because words can mean what ever you want them to.
You say:
I could even imagine a universe where a curve is actually the right angle of a square.
I say:
If you define a right angle as a curve you have not imagined an innovative universe you have butchered our common language and severed the only means we have for communication with each other.
Do you understand the seriousness of this line of reasoning?I hope you do
I will try and post the next part of my argument tomorrow but I must admit I am truly set aback by this. If we lose language our society is truly doomed. scary !!!!
Peace
Peace
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
It is not my intent to frustrate you by intentially being obstinate. I am trying to communicate my thoughts to you.
May I suggest your frustration (“set aback by this”, “society is truly doomed”, “scary”) could have more to do your frustration that I can actually believe Truth isn’t fixed and universal than it does with flexible definitions?
Personally, I think society gets into the most trouble when it starts to believe there actually is a universal Truth. I understand why you don’t agree with me on this point. However, I hope you aren’t too surprised by my attitude and, even, possibly understand why my philosophy is different than yours.
As for the circles and squares. I may have not communicated just how radical the idea of a flexible PI is. It implies the possibility or a flexible geometry that we can mathematically model (i.e. we can imagine) even though it defies common sense.
You talk about a circle being a set of points where “every point of the line being an equal distance from the center point”. There are plenty of non-Euclidean geometries where that could hold true but circumference/diameter ratio would not equal PI.
Once you imagine such a non-Euclidean curved geometry, now imagine geometry where the curvature is not smooth. The set of equidistant points would have sharp corners in the path. And if the geometry was curved just right the set of points would be four straight lines of equal length between the corners. In such geometry, a circle could be a square and visa-versa.
I argue this has merit since we have an example of a universe with non-Euclidean geometry, our universe.
My NOMA philosophies allow me to presume our observable universe follows scientific laws and is consistently logical while agreeing multiple (and contradictory) metaphysical Truths are equally valid.
I consider things outside of our observable universe to be metaphysical. This is what I understand is meant by the term “Cosmos” per the shared definition.
We may have to agree to disagree here. But hopefully we have communicated.
Hey TP
You said:
We may have to agree to disagree here. But hopefully we have communicated.
I say:
You don’t understand the gravity of the disagreement it is fundamental and prior to every thing else we will ever attempt to discuss ever.
I’m sorry to say that if you believe that a circle can be a square we have not communicated at all.
In fact all communication is impossible
lets look at just one sentence to illustrate this point please note I do not believe what I’m about to argue I’m am just picking one sentence at random to show what can happen when we murder language
you said:
I consider things outside of our observable universe to be metaphysical. This is what I understand is meant by the term “Cosmos” per the shared definition.
I say
If a square can be a circle why must things outside our observable universe be metaphysical?
I can imagine a universe populated by omniscient beings that trully know everything in the cosmos with out having to observe any of it. Who’s to say that this is not such a universe?
I can imagine a universe where the term “shared definition” actually means that I can decide on my own how to define a term and you must abide by it or be guilty of a capital offence. Who’s to say that this is not such a universe?
I can imagine a universe where my dreams of the Cosmos count as observations and are more reliable than what I see with my physical senses who is to say this is not such a universe?
Get the point?
The only way we can even function in a society is if I have faith that you really believe that definitions are objective despite what you say. Luckily for me you demonstrate by your continued law-abiding behavior that I’m correct.
If you really believed that even definitions are plastic and could be bent to your will. I’m afraid we would be justified in locking you up for your own safety.
Therefore I will treat this as merely a debating tactic on your part or at best a proposition that you haven’t thought through because of it’s implications.
Does that count as agreeing to disagree in your thinking?
Peace
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I’m sorry to say that if you believe that a circle can be a square we have not communicated at all.
I suggest we ARE communicating, just not agreeing. In fact, our communications may have helped generate a better understanding of the fundamental differences in our philosophies.
Differences shouldn't be surprising considering I embrace NOMA and you reject it.
You think there can be only one reality, only one Truth. You extend this beyond our observable universe into the metaphysical "cosmos".
I do not.
Metaphysically, I do not see a logical warrant for presuming what is the Truth for you MUST be the Truth for me.
I think, therefore I am.
The only Truth that matters to me is the one I understand for myself.
If I tried to accept your Truth over mine without understanding it, it wouldn't be the Truth for me.
The same would hold if the entire population held a Truth different from mine, because it wouldn't be the Truth for me until I understood it.
You wrote...
I can imagine a universe where my dreams of the Cosmos count as observations and are more reliable than what I see with my physical senses who is to say this is not such a universe?
Get the point?
Yes, but do you?
That is your Truth, not mine.
Your dreams aren’t my dreams. Observations through our physical senses are something we can mutually accept as part of some form of “reality”.
Through mutual and verifiable observations, we can share knowledge. Sharing Truth is an entirely different matter (i.e. NOMA)
You wrote...
The only way we can even function in a society is if I have faith that you really believe that definitions are objective despite what you say. Luckily for me you demonstrate by your continued law-abiding behavior that I’m correct.
Ideas are what are important. Once the idea of an agreement is communicated, it doesn't matter how definitions are changed. Internal ethics (inherited?) drives my behavior.
I am leery of people who rely on external leadership (real or imagined) to control their thoughts, beliefs and behavior. I have noticed these kinds of people tend to be unpredictable.
You wrote...
If you really believed that even definitions are plastic and could be bent to your will. I’m afraid we would be justified in locking you up for your own safety.
Good luck with that, because I do believe definitions are plastic and my view of reality does bend to my will.
I think, therefore I am. Everything else could be an illusion for all I know.
I will continue to act predictably and ethically because it works, not because I am letting others do my thinking for me.
Hey TP.
I believe you are confusing categories here your rejection on NOMA has nothing to do with your rejection of language. You need to accept language before you can even know what NOMA means. I know lots of people who reject NOMA you are the first who rejects language
You said:
I will continue to act predictably and ethically because it works,
I say:
You can’t even understand the words “predictably” or “ethically” or “works” unless you accept that words have meanings something you have denied you believe. So I am having a hard time understanding what you are getting at. Talk about unpredictable
You said:
not because I am letting others do my thinking for me.
I say:
I’m not asking you to let others think for you I’m asking you to embrace language something that separates us humans from animals. If you insist on acting like an animal why would I not be justified for treating you like one?
Note I’m not suggesting any of this just trying to see the implications of your stand
Peace
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I was tempted to put together some clipart and link to it with a ;-)
It is quite possible to communicate without language.
Ideas are what are important, not words.
I am not surprised that you place so much value on something you think separates humans from animals. However, humans are not the only living things that communicate with sounds and language.
Researchers are even figuring out the vocabulary of prairie dogs is quite sophisticated.
Is it unethical to break an agreement with an animal?
Humans can and do make deals with animals. These agreements are generally communicated without language, although humans tend to call it “training”.
It is quite possible to train humans.
Just like domesticated pets, trained humans are generally happier and feel more secure when they are obedient to a higher authority.
Under the right circumstances, I could see myself doing the same. But I keep coming back to the basics…
I think, therefore I am.
Thinking for myself seem like the natural thing to do.
I have noticed that people who think this way are more predicable than those who believe in an absolute moral code.
Some things you have said in this thread alone...
"If you really believed that even definitions are plastic and could be bent to your will. I’m afraid we would be justified in locking you up for your own safety."
"If you insist on acting like an animal why would I not be justified for treating you like one?"
Even if you would feel these sentiments are morally justified, can you see that it would be unethical to act upon them?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home