RE: Blind faith and evolution
September 27, 2013 at 10:20 am
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2013 at 10:25 am by Little Rik.)
(September 27, 2013 at 5:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think a good case can be made for idealism. If you are a physical monist, you have to do pretty elaborate (read: bullshit) jumping jacks to explain how actual subjective experience is a physical thing, since it is exactly not what is meant by "physical." In an idealistic universe, there's no such conflict: every physical thing, and every consistent pattern (i.e. the ones science deals with), still makes perfect sense as an idea, since that's how we experience everything anyway.
For example, we normally study the motion of objects, and ascribe momentum as the property of an object: the spaceship has a momentum of _____. However, the math can also be seeing as UNDERLYING the motion of the objects, i.e. that the objects are manifestations of the math. And yet the math cannot be seen, except as it is expressed as the apparent properties of objects.
This underlying math is called physics, but what underlies it? It is necessary what that can be seen cannot underly itself. Therefore something unseen underlies it. That's metaphysics. And it's necessarily real.
Now, that doesn't mean Sky Daddy. But it does mean that observation as a means of determining absolute truth necessarily fails. Science cannot determine, ever, absolute truth.
It is obvious to me that science........cannot determine, ever, absolute truth.
How can truth belong to an illusory dimension as this physical universe?
(September 27, 2013 at 10:08 am)Stimbo Wrote: "Grow up"!
Stimbo, Stimbo my beard is GROWING longer and longer by waiting your reply about the meaning of love of wisdom.
Will i ever get an answer?hock: