Rex, you may have made a typo, but in my thinking it does not make a difference: when I translate the 'physicalist' surety into hypothetical (agnostic, assumed) possibilities it leads to the same uncertainty if translated from YES or from NO. My main point is the "*given the universe's initial condition*" (what I deny *as fixed* in the so called Big Bang Theory). Furthermore: the *propagation*from ANY conceivable origin into today's condition follows "chaotic" (nonlinear) ways, yet it is *retrograded* by linear steps. The cosmologic marvels of *'inflation' *(space) and 'events' timed at *sec.#1^-43*, or * ^-32* etc (as in time) are products to make the calculative mistakes in that theory irrelevant - when applying today's *physics of the present conditions* to a fundamentally different system with zillion-times bigger temperature, pressures, zillion-times smnaller extensions and concentrated effects into "eggs" that did not hatched yet. I substituted in my *narrative* (Origination of our world from 'a' Plenitude - not a theory) the inflation by the initiation of SPACE from the originally *a-spatial* (no extension) source and the incredible marvels at incredibly small* first* time-fractions by the transitional state from the a-temporal (= timeless source) into our time-governed universe. The rest is the attempt of the conventional physicality to write matching equations and theory-abiding calculations to some *story* of explaining the unexplainable. (My narrative: in Karl Jaspers Forum TA-62MIK 2003). * *Your remark on Ontology:* the static view of the existence? the attempt of *conventional science* (with its translated philosophy) to valuate/validate those *snapshots* taken at certain instants from the ever changing complexity of the world. The changing dynamics is represented (I did not say "IS") in the epistemic view - still "as we see it" every one of us for himself. (OUR perceived world). This, again, is no 'theory', just a way I can look at the world of lesser paradoxicalities than the conventional sciences. Without omniscience we cannot comprehend (not even encompass) the entirety (totality, wholenss) of the interrelated ever changing complexity: the world.
You remarked: *"But of course, in unguarded moments we inevitably slip back into ontological speculation anyway." *And so we slip back into conventional * model-view* of the so far learned conventional scientific arguments as well. We are humans. That's how our mind works, especially in 'unguarded moments'. In trying to overcome such back-slips I do not see much principle difference between Kant's idealism and conventional physicalism. Or the Anthropocentric Intelligent Design either. John M " On 5/6/10, Rex Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ha! Indeed, these nesting levels do get fairly obscure. > > > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:49 AM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Rex, > > I tried to paraphrase your next to last par. of this post. > > It was: > > "As if we could do otherwise. If we assume physicalism, then our > > constituent particles are doing all the work. Given the universe's > > initial conditions and causal laws (which may be probabilistic), they > > could behave other than they do. In this view, the emotion we feel > > would seem to be an irrelevant non-causal side-effect at best. Maybe > > even an illusion?" > > I made a typo there that kind of spoiled the point I was trying to make: > > > Given the universe's > > initial conditions and causal laws (which may be probabilistic), they > > could behave other than they do. > > SHOULD HAVE BEEN: > > > Given the universe's > > initial conditions and causal laws (which may be probabilistic), they > > could ****NOT**** behave other than they do. > > Sorry about that! > > > > > > In my paraphrasing: > > > > As if we could think otherwise. If we assume physicalism, then our > assumed > > constituent particles are assigned to "do all the work". Assuming the > > universe's initial conditions and the conventional 'causal' laws (which > may > > be part of the believe system) they could be assumed to behave other than > we > > presume 'them' to do. In such view the emotion we feel would seem to be > an > > irrelevant (non causal? secondary?) side-effect at best. > > Maybe even an illusion (if we assign an adequate meaning to this term). > > > > So you've taken my ontological statement and translated it into it's > epistemological equivalent? > > Are you saying that ontological speculation is pointless? If so, I > tend to agree. > > But of course, in unguarded moments we inevitably slip back into > ontological speculation anyway. > > BUT, taking your epistemological equivalent and then adding the belief > that ontological speculation is ultimately pointless - and then > translating *that* back into ontology gives us Kant's transcendental > idealism (or maybe just pure idealism), not physicalism. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<everything-list%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
