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 <rexallen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ha!  Indeed, these nesting levels do get fairly obscure.
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:49 AM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to