--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Darryl Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> >The answer would be yes, of course. All of these are phenomenon.
> >Reality
> >would continue to unfold, but the universe: the organization of
> >impressions
> >of reality made by human minds, would cease to exist.
>
>Dan, you've got a funny definition of the word "universe" here.
I thought I had the standard definition: the stuff that came out of the Big
Bang, galaxies, quasars, dark matter, etc. What else would you suggest for
being in the universe?
> So you want to restrict the word "universe" to your idea of the GUI
>interface that humans use to understand reality?
Basically, yes. If you allow the GUI to be an expanded metaphor that
includes all phenomenon and the models we make of that phenomenon. I'm
claiming that's what science does, make models of phenomenon. That's a
pretty standard definition at sci.physics, BTW, even among people who call
themselves realists.
>And the universe is different than reality?
If realism isn't valid, yes that's true.
>
>Seems a little fishy to me. Why not call "reality" the universe and
>"the universe" reality,
Because that would be presupposing realism. I think that the definition of
"the universe" is pretty straightforward. All physicists, astronomers,
astrophysicists, etc. know what is meant by that, no matter what their
metaphysical persuasion is.
>and use a different term (such as consciousness or whatever you >like) to
refer to human perceptions of reality?
Because what I wrote states the metaphysical position quite clearly, I
think. I'm going to venture a guess as to why you don't see it that way in
a bit.
>By using this word this way you are (perhaps deliberately)
> miscommunicating.
>
Have you ever seen me deliberately miscommunication an idea? If so, I would
like an example. Let me offer you an alternative. Different philosophical
positions are often difficult to grasp at first because they violate
presuppositions that are so basic for us, we hardly realize that we are
making them. I may not be effective in communicating a Kantian worldview to
you, but I do have the excuse that it is a fairly difficult worldview to
grasp.
>Or perhaps you are again trying to use QM to prove that God exists.
Could you cite an example of when I've done this? I agree with Kant, one
cannot prove the existence of God through pure reason. I have stated that
faith is necessary for ethics, but that can include faith in the validity of
principals like "all people are created equal", not just faith in God.
>I get the impression that you are setting up a situation where if >people
accept your definitions then you can show that your viewpoint
> neccesarily includes God.
No, my viewpoint does not require the existence of God. I think that God is
a matter of faith, not proof. It only requires a broader view of reality
than common sense might indicate. But, common sense has been falsified by
QM, so there you go.
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
