Marsha, The general theory of reality can be science if you want it to be. Regards, Mark
On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:17:29 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: From: MarshaV <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics Date: January 16, 2010 1:17:29 PM PST To: [email protected] corrected... Krimel, I think I remember that Einstein used Riemannian geometry in the general theory of relativity. Is the general theory of relativy science? Marsha On Jan 16, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Krimel wrote: > [Mark] > I think the concept of intelligent design depends on the definition > of intelligence. We have been through this before so I won't > belabor it, but doesn't the trial and errors and learning that > occurs in evolution represent a form of intelligence? Semantically > at least? > > [Krimel] > When atmospheric conditions produce a hurricane, is that a form of > intelligence? After all how does each new storm know which way to spin and > where to put its eye? Is it "like" intelligence? In some ways, yes, but to > identify it "as" intelligence ignores the myriad of ways it is nothing at > all like intelligence. For example, there is no agency, purpose, intention > or reflection involved; all of which seem to me at least to have some > barring on intelligence. > > [Mark] > Thermodynamics is a self-contained system in physics which defines all terms > with reference to each other. There is no possible way for it to be wrong. > If I set up a system of definitions, it cannot be wrong because I make the > definitions. > > [Krimel] > Here I think you are highlighting the difference between inductive and > deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with its definitions and > proceeds to make sense from there. For the most part this is the kind of > closed system the Gödel claims must contain elements that cannot be proven > within the system. > > Deductive reasoning is our gift from the Greeks. Inductive reasoning, which > is the foundation of scientific thought, doesn't work that way. When we use > it, we are seeking to build our definitions from our observations. In a > sense the system we are trying to build is entiring composed of elements > brought into the system from outside. > > This method demands that when those outside elements fit, we assimilate > them. When they don't fit we must adjust the way we account for them, we > accommodate to them. > > [Mark] > This is similar to the notions that math cannot be wrong. Of course it > can't. If I say The sun is hot, because heat comes from the sun, that can't > be wrong either. > > [Krimel] > The notions of math can't be wrong if you accept the assumptions that the > mathematician specifies at the outset. However, as a mathematician you are > free to offer other premises, like Lobachevsky and Riemann. But again I > would see this as a problem for the deductive method that does not > necessarily apply to the inductive method. > > Saying "the sun is hot" seems to me, at least, to be derived from > experience. It is what Kant would call synthetic truth. The math examples > reveal analytic truth. > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
