Well as for the focus of the soul Ii have to confess to being a bit of a zombie there,, it carries the karma ho we have lived out lives here ,, as I see it the purpose or task of our is to determine or improve our social status in relationship with the Creator.. as for the souls creation I can not help but wonder if it was not to enjoy the presence of the Entirety and his creation of the universe (s). Allan
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:43 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I always preferred the north-stand - or at least running down the wing > in front of it (we played rugby in winters before global warming and > one got better protection from the icy rain and wind on that side of > the ground). Allan's call that the soul comes before the universe is > a bit like constructor theory but lacks focus in the task or present. > It's souls all the way down after this discovery. Infinite regresses > in science usually mean one has fouled-up. They may be resolvable by > mock-modal-structuralism (seriously - but let's not go there!). > > There's a 'form' in Deutsch's argument that reminds me of positivists > like Carnap. I have no real arguments against god, only ignorance and > superstition. I don't want to be led by the kind of charisma that > would have me follow Herman or Barbarosa or prevent a raped woman > having an abortion. The task is to retain respect for the deluded > believer and her blue and white striped rabbit. The BBC is currently > running a series on 'Charismatic Hitler', totally lacking the balls to > run something similar on Churchill and British foreign policy's role > in creating conditions in Germany for the rise of such a religious- > cultist jerk. Science has arguments of this form and considers this > essential until experiment and explanation can decide. "Public > argument" always evades the necessary data collection. > > On 17 Nov, 12:07, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> True, 2 4stand is situated in a different referential system than 2 >> (-)stand. Wissenschaft's claim of knowledge being able to bring >> something/someone into being remains undisputed by that. >> >> 2012/11/17 archytas <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The number of social science symposia at which I was exposed to all >> > that and the verstehen problematic is too high. The radiation left me >> > wondering on the wuckfittery of not noticing science is socially >> > constructed in order to discover social science is. It's partly the >> > old business that intent to dissolve metaphysics is metaphysical. >> >> > On 16 Nov, 20:02, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We have Geisteswissenschaften and Naturwissenschaften here, both being >> >> Wissenschaften of the same historical descent - finding out what IOU. >> >> The original M-theory so to speak. :) >> >> >> 2012/11/16 archytas <[email protected]>: >> >> >> > arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439 >> >> > Should produce David Deutsch's paper free. >> >> >> > This is a good example of science philosophy trying to shift thinking >> >> > boundaries. There's some physics in it, but probably not enough to >> >> > put off a few readers in here. David works on how science may be >> >> > restricted by our traditional myths of origin - and that we tend to >> >> > posit origins (Big Bang etc.) that may be as unhelpful as god concepts >> >> > to science (as opposed to spiritual discussion). >> >> >> > He also challenges ideas of mathematical a priori - such as Kant's >> >> > claim to know the geometry of the universe in such a manner. >> >> >> > The paper is speculative and I read it because I'm tinkering with >> >> > ideas of what economics might be if it was a science. I'm not a >> >> > believer in scientific method beyond tropical fish realism. What has >> >> > always struck me about economics is that it seems the prime reason for >> >> > not doing things because it renders our hopes impossible. A truly >> >> > scientific theory seeks to show us what is possible and what won't >> >> > work. We make the Higgs' boson (or at least get to see some of its >> >> > decay particles) from hydrogen in several kilometres of the LHC at >> >> > CERN and shouldn't forget the construction involved. >> >> >> > Classical constructors in science are catalysts. Biology is full of >> >> > them. David says the ultimate constructor may be knowledge and we >> >> > might be able to get to a sensible theory of human beings as such. >> >> > The 'unit' he is proposing is the task. I guess the problem he >> >> > wrestles with is the way we become technicians of dogma. >> >> >> > I'm fairly sure my own revulsion with economics is based on the Bible >> >> > story of kicking over the tables of the money-lenders. David Graeber >> >> > has a book out suggesting religion was much more concerned with that >> >> > through history and rebellion against debt.. >> >> >> > Origin in physics is not really Big Bang (or any of the alternatives) >> >> > and remains prone to the 'turtle argument' (the world is held up by a >> >> > turtle, so what holds up the turtle - another turtle, then another >> >> > turtle until, after that, its turtles all the way down). >> >> >> > -- >> >> > -- > > -- > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. I am a Natural Airgunner - Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly. --
