On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:57 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > No. Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined > ostensively. > > A definition by ostension, requires the faith that there is a reality, > that we are not dreaming or in an arithmetical video game, or an infinity > of them. > > > > > It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles. > > But you need an act of faith to believe that there isa reality behind your > hypothesises principles. You don’t need faith the formally deduce in a > theory, but you need a faith in a reality to confront the theory with > possible facts. >
No need for faith in realities means that personal mysticism is up to each one of us and cannot be weaponized by folks like you, who may choose to do so to promote personal positions and credibility. Nobody needs that to proceed with science or metaphysics. One can assume some purposefully undefined pluralism and be done with hierarchical follies, their fascisms, sidestepping problems of the one and the many, including the deification of some lonesome subject who would think through existence, give it conditions and arbitrary hierarchies with heavy ethical burdens that may be conceptually unsolvable anyway, as well as perform the gullible pacifying Christian things, like accounting for the subject's origins and losing ourselves in defending unclear notions like consciousness and souls. Purists and fanatics will always try to sell us the "truth thing" via some dialectical strategy of those bad other guys, or mistakes of the world, filled with physicalist fanatics for example, and will always emerge as messiahs insulting every intelligence in existence. And this doesn't cut it as metaphysics anymore. It's the conspiracy trick. Rhetorical flourish. Concrete metaphysics/philosophy will never be obtained by weighing the inadequacy of some supposed enemy or ideal, your physicalists for example against the inadequacy of the arithmetical realist and all the shit he can't explain => such metaphysics just concedes its inadequacy. Bad build quality. Even with infinite posts, Bruno. Purists will fail to account credibly for too many things and guys like me will always find the dirty secrets, your prostitutes, zombies, fridges in the sky, rhetorical trickery... and we'll call them out when you play preacher of science, truth, probity, and arbiter of morals and inquiry for others. You'll never get the perfect singular thing by correcting a generality like some supposed physicalism with another unclear generality like some supposed arithmetical realism. And if you think you can, you'll need an extraordinary amount of convincing evidence beyond speculative hunches and generalized logical fits and possible validities. All of Bruce's, Brent's, and all phycisists' Christmas wishes have to be fulfilled and optimized. You have not achieved this, therefore "mechanism" is insufficient and unconvincing for now. And guess what: not assuming some reality assumes your ability to explore and share your own mysticism. It values that to such an extent that it should be a general duty of citizenship but specifically not to impose a nativism or purism in the way others perceive the world and the commons. More genuine modesty and respect than "mechanism" on its infinite ontological police trip. A pluralism of diversity, aiming towards the benevolent avoidance of corruption and crime with a more or less pronounced emphasis of the value of the separation of powers and independent inquiry. And such metaphysics can have practical application because the environment is unclear and unspecified! Besides jazz and the pursuit of sexiness, we green buildings, walls, and roofs. We do biodiversity studies and try to preserve systemic plurality, not for some ideological trip, but because plurality of species in an area prevents desertification. Survival in style, open for optimization. Similar in politics and education: we don't need monoculture, puristic hierarchical thinking. That's corporations and spy industry running on cynical metaphysics of advertising and power, which places science in hiding. It's well-organized abuse even if all those folks have good hearts. And without some purist perfectionism we can still make deals with their agents, treat them with respect the way we treat ourselves, collaborate on a level where we get the most for common futures as far as we can see, confront them on what we believe to be the central issues, and work to limit our usual tendencies towards self-destruction in short term gain. With all the crazy shit out there, I also see more and more folks relating to these notions. And that's infinitely better for than whining about perfect ontologies and their/our credibility. Doing it: everybody thinking, listening, acting, speaking up and sharing their personal awesomeness and their unique special thoughts. And guess what? The world is so full of opportunity these days, I don't feel a need to insult your intelligence with some well-specified ensemble theory, my company's name, even my name, or another book. The ensemble idea of this list could well be a trap/unsolvable and deserves to be argued against if we're indeed critical. Hence my continued presence as wolf arguing against them. Now you'll say "But without clear assumptions to have faith in: that is unclear! You could be manipulating me!" and I'll reply to you that whatever complete, unified picture you present, I could raise the same objection. Cards on the table doesn't mean we're not being robbed. Here's a problem for mechanism: If I rob you, while telling you honestly why I am robbing and manipulating you, confessing my own ignorance, then comp validates that as a truthful, sincere act. Sorry, but that's horrible metaphysics. With some less specified pluralism: any agent taking resources from another has to find compensation for preservation of possibilities and diversity's sake. Working on the metaphysics and laws that stop incentives to rob ourselves, as the unbalanced transfer of resources just weakens us systemically, would be higher priority than ontological whining and hair splitting. The strength in weakness. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3682ca70-1536-4ac4-9276-e5ac58fed706%40googlegroups.com.
