Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Message-ID: <969@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 09:57:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.969
Posted: Tue Aug 13 09:57:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 14:20:30 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 142
Xref: watmath net.origins:2097 net.religion:7381 net.philosophy:2272


         [This line should be gone by the time you see it]

From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen), Message-ID: <1410@pyuxd.UUCP>:
> |> >>> [Rich Rosen]	>> >>>> [me]
> | 
> |>>>>Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential
> |>>>>truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only
> |>>>>it was dormant -- exactly like a seed....
> |
> |>You miss the point.  I was saying that the position above only has meaning
> |>if you assume a creator who "designed" the complexity.
> | 
> |Then you are saying that the existence of a seed-like proto-universe
> |would imply a Creator?
> 
> Wait a minute.  Take a '>>>>' quote from you, then take a '>' quote from me
> that wasn't in response to the '>>>>' quote, and then twist again, like we
> did last summer?  What the hell is going on?

Calm down, son, he was just appeasing those folks who think we provide
too much context for discussion.  The "'>' quote" from you was in fact in
response to the "'>>>>' quote" from ... shoot, is that Mike?  There was
just some other stuff in between that doesn't really matter.  But anyway,
he's responding to your last statement which is correctly quoted, even if
not all of the context is provided.  And you're avoiding answering his
question.  *Do* you think that a proto-universe with inherent potential
complexity similar to that of a seed would imply a creator?

>>     What notions? What pet theories? Who said science should be shackled?
>
>YOU did, by insisting that certain things are "not in the realm" of science,
>BECAUSE they have names like "non-physical", "souls", etc.

So saying that something has limits is shackling it?  You can't see
ultraviolet light, you poor shackled creature, you.  Get real, Rich.
That's a pretty emotional appeal coming from a "science uber alles"
kind of fellow. :-)

>(Really putting
>the cart before the horse:  making claims about aspects of the universe
>as being definitively beyond science so that one can then say science can't
>investigate them, which really simply means that they should not be subject
>to serious (scientific) inquiry.)

Huh?  Does anybody understand this?

>>>Why should such examination have "limits"?
>
>>     The limits are intrinsic and not externally imposed.
>
>What are they?  And why don't they apply to "certain things"?

Why don't *what* apply to "certain things"?  Limits?  Limits apply to
everything.  Even (gasp) science.

>>     That means it is unable to do certain things, just as a blind person
>>     cannot see. For example, I would not judge the merits of a musical
>>     composition using the scientific method.
>
>But you could examine what aspects of a piece MAKE it a "good" piece in a
>very scientific way.

Could you?  Even tho there's never complete agreement on which music is
"good"?  Even tho people's tastes vary over time?  Even if you could nail
down all the factors that induce Mike to say "this music is good", could
you use that information to predict *anything* about what he'll say in 2
years?  And could you use it to predict anything about anybody else?  If
you really can do this, you should, 'cause you'd make big bucks in the
record business.  When you do, send us all postcards from Tinsel Town and
we'll remember you with new respect.  But until you do, I'd say the burden
of proof is on you to show how music can be scientifically judged as "good".

>>     I do not agree.
>
>Oh.  I see.  Thank you for clarifying that with such powerful reasoning. :-?

I *loathe* people who respond to the first sentence of a paragraph before
they even read what follows.  Whatsa matter, Rich, can't comprehend an
entire paragraph at once?  His reasoning followed on the very next line.

>Well, since "love" is a word to describe what happens when all those factors
>come together, it "exists".  But, alas, you don't care about what got it to
>be that way.

One may well end up being able to scientifically determine when someone
is in love and why.  It may well just be a chemical reaction.  But I
really don't see how, even in theory, one can scientifically determine
whether or not an individual is married, or has recently broken a law, or
is president.  And marriage and crime and the presidency certainly seem
to be real things with real consequences.  Please either explain why
they're not real, or give me some clue as to how one would approach them
scientifically.  Or, of course, you could concede that science doesn't
apply to everything.

>>>>Most people attribute existence to at least a few kinds of nonobjective
>>>>things -- like beauty, meaning, awareness, causality, science,
>>>>schroedinger probability waves, probably `physical objects', and maybe
>>>>music, time, space...  Clearly SOME meaningful things exist that have
>>>>little or no objective existence whatsoever. 
>
>>>We're talking about constructs and patterns designed by the mind to
>>>REPRESENT reality, not reality.
>
>>     Do you claim to know what reality IS?
>
>No, you do.

So you *don't* know what reality is.  Well, if you don't know what the
definition of reality is, then on what basis do you say that beauty,
meaning, awareness, ... don't fit it?  Come on, now, do something new and
THINK about what you're saying.  You seemed to be saying that they're not
real because they're "constructs and patterns designed by the mind to
REPRESENT reality".  Well, but why does that make them not real?  Is it
because they're constructs and patterns?  Is it because they're designed
by the mind?  Numbers are constructs/patterns designed by the mind to
represent reality.  After all, there's no such physical thing as a 3.4.
Nevertheless, numbers are real, and, in fact, your science depends on
them quite heavily.  So what is it about beauty, meaning, awareness, ...
that makes you think they're not real?  And why?

>>     If you know how to tell which are more real than others, please
>>     enlighten us, my friend.
>
>I thought I just did, and I didn't think it was very "enlightening" [....]

At last something I can agree with.  It most certainly was *not*
enlightening.  Try to say something cogent that *will* enlighten as to
why science can be applied to everything.

>"There!  I've run rings 'round you logically!"

Dream on.

-- 

--JB       (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)

		"Oh yeah, P.S.,
		 I, I feel, feel like, I am
		 in a burning building
		 And I gotta go."            (Laurie Anderson)