Post by Kevrob[snip]
Post by JonathanPost by KevrobLeave the woo out and I'm fine with emergent systems, et al.
The tub-thumping for woo is what annoys. Try keeping the
chocolate out of the peanut butter.
Science and philosophy are not apples and oranges.
You are term-shifting, there. Woo =/ philosophy.
Remember that science used to be called "natural
philosophy" and the "divide" between the two boils down
to a branch of the discipline growing so that it set up shop
on its own. The same goes for theology, but for those of
us unconvinced of the existence of deities, that "branch of
knowledge" belongs out on its own, with other speculative
modes of thought. It's mythology and unadmitted fiction.
So you need to ask yourself who it is that supports
the notion that deities are some form of a
wise old man out there waving a magic wand.
That's what religions teach to...children or
to those unable to handle philosophical concepts.
That is why I reference religious philosophy instead
of what's preached to kids in Sunday school.
Which is what you seem to base your opinions
of religions.
Have you even investigated how the major religions
define God? If so please give that definition
here and now to show you have more than a child's
understanding of religious philosophy?
Else your claim of religion as mythological hooey
is in error.
Has it occurred to you most of the best minds
this planet has produced over the last
few....thousand years have vetted religious
philosophy endlessly? As a result it's mostly
bulletproof, not the fictional mythology which
this ng specializes in.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says
about God and those that take....literally
descriptions of God. Which is apparently what
most science-minded people thoughtlessly do.
Written in...1909 I might add.
(ii) Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think
and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature — more
especially a magnified man — and this is known as anthropomorphism.
Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs,
or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and
this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of
metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the
strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that
it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship.
But whatever truth there may be in this charge as applied
to Polytheistic religions, or even to the Theistic beliefs
of rude and uncultured minds, it is untrue and unjust when
directed against philosophical Theism.
The same reasons that justify and recommend the use of
metaphorical language in other connections justify and
recommended it here, but no Theist of *average intelligence*
ever thinks of understanding literally the metaphors he
applies, or hears applied by others, to God, any more
than he means to speak literally when he calls a
brave man a lion, or a cunning one a fox.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm
Post by KevrobPost by JonathanThey are complimentary, as in one begins where
the other ends.
To believe science can provide all the answers is the
great delusion of our times.
For instance, physics still can't predict the
...eh hum.../three/ body problem without doing
absurd cartwheels around reality.
And to think such a science can unravel nature
with it's countless random events displays
a shocking level of unbridled Faith that
would cause even the most fervent Bible thumper
to blush.
I certainly think moral problems are the province of a branch
of philosophy: Ethics.
How about a morality based in science instead?
That is what complexity science, my hobby, can do.
It's a method of understanding nature that can
bridge conventional science and religion into
a...single view...consistent with BOTH.
And as such can be a transformative new scientific
method, ending the age-old conflicts between
the two opposing world views.
Ethics and Complexity: Why standard ethical frameworks
cannot cope with socio-technological change
"Ethics needs its Copernican revolution to be able to
deal with all moral agents, including not only humans,
but also artificial intelligent agents, robots or
organizations of all sizes. We argue that embracing
the complexity worldview is the first step towards
this revolution, and that standard ethical frameworks
are still entrenched in the Newtonian worldview."
https://comdig.unam.mx/2019/11/14/ethics-and-complexity-why-standard-ethical-frameworks-cannot-cope-with-socio-technological-change/
Law, Ethics, and Complexity: Complexity
Theory and the Normative Reconstruction
of Law
Julian Webb
University of Westminster, London, U.K
"Lastly, I suggest there is scope within complexity theory
to acknowledge and develop the scope of the ethical itself".
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/216928305.pdf
Post by KevrobOne learns about religion because it has influenced our history,
and believers in religions continue to be affect us today. One
may admire the poetry, the repositories of custom and customary
law and find the
Post by JonathanPost by KevrobI think various modern pharmaceuticals, if taken in appropriate
doses, as prescribed, might have helped Ms Dickinson.
Proof is a poor substitute for abstract thought.
Only via analogy can reality be clearly seen.
We can't see "reality" - just take in sensory experiences
for our brains to interpret. That's not to say there aren't
real things, just that as physical beings we have limitations
on gathering data before visualizing the cosmic all.
Post by JonathanI NEVER saw a moor,
I never saw the sea;
How do you live in Amherst, MA and never travel the 90 mi to
Boston or the 80 mi to Providence. They had trains. Lady was
obsessed with the sea, bu couldn't book a week on "the Irish
Riviera?" (Probably wasn't called that, yet.)
Post by JonathanYet know I how the heather looks,
Apparently based on no data at all. Photography was
a new art. Had she seen B&W pictures, even?
She had the entire concept of self organization
/intuitively/ figured out 150 years before it's
discovery.
Complexity Science is defined as....
"Critically interacting systems self-organize
to produce potentially evolving structures
exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system
properties."
https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html#1.3
The primary concepts are...
This process is universal to all things.
The process is internal, and follows a
power law (inverse square law) behavior.
Critically interacting, the basis of chaos
theory is that order and disorder critically
interact, or stand at the transition point
between the two, they compete with each other.
Edge of chaos: critical behavior pushes the system
towards this ideal organizing state.
Natural selection merely fine-tunes what the
internal process of self organization has
already created.
Self-organized criticality (SOC) the ability of a system
to evolve in such a way as to approach a critical point
and then maintain itself at that point.
It's ALL HERE, and even more remarkably it
even sound nice rolling off the tongue.
This is a level of genius that's hard
to match.
Growth of Man—like Growth of Nature (universal)
Gravitates within (inverse square)
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it (selection only fine-tunes)
Bit it stir—alone (internal, independent)
Each—its difficult Ideal (Self-organized criticality)
Must achieve—Itself
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life
Effort—is the sole condition
Patience of Itself
Patience of opposing forces (order-chaos competition)
And intact Belief
Looking on—is the Department (again, independent of environment)
Of its Audience
But Transaction—is assisted
By no Countenance
Post by KevrobPost by JonathanAnd what a wave must be.
The sea, again, though perhaps she'd seen waves
in a lake or river. I grew up on an island, so
"has never seen the sea" would make me think of
someone loving in Nebraska, or thereabouts.
Post by JonathanI never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven;
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the chart were given.
Imagination is a wonderful thing.
I "know" what dragons look like, too.
That doesn't mean there are any.
That's what fairy stories and SF are for.
Why do you think I'm here? To bring some
sanity, some science, to an ng devoted
to shear fantasy.
Which is what you accuse religions to be.
Perhaps it's modern science that's lost the
ability to tell reality from fantasy?
When religious philosophy had it right
from Day One, in their belief that 'God'
is an inherent, and apparently mysterious
creative force that appears out of nowhere...
Tell me, how is that different from the
modern definition of emergence below?
Emergence Taxonomy
"The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
“how does an entity come into existence?”
In a process of emergence we observe something (for instance
the appearance of order or organization) and ask how this
is possible, since we assume causality: every effect
should have a cause.
The surprising aspect in a process of emergence is
the observation of an *effect without an apparent cause*.
Although the process of emergence might look mysterious,
there is nothing mystical, magical or unscientific
about it.
Because true emergent properties are irreducible,
they can not be destroyed or decomposed – they
appear or disappear instead. In this sense
they may seem to be indestructible and are potentially
the only things that really exist, but if they are
examined too closely - if we take a deeper look
at the components of the system - they do not
exist at all and often vanish into nothing."
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf
Religion just didn't know why, but we do now
via the modern concept of emergence.
God is the ultimate emergent property, which
is the truth, btw.
And defining God in that way makes the concept of God
/entirely consistent/ with religion AND science.
And that's a big deal imho.
Science finding God, that is.
Having a purely mathematical basis for believing
in something greater than ourselves for our
creation.
It's a big deal.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1