| re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia | |
|
Posted by: |
elton22 10:53 pm UTC 06/20/07 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia - Venom 10:50 pm UTC 06/19/07 |
| Well I don't think it's as complicated or confusing as you make out. Your language is obfuscatory and you're blurring boundries between perceptions in the first instance, and their analyses in the second. This is an example of a poorly worded question: > Again, my questions are to explain why the forces of the > rules themselves even exist. Their origin. "The forces of the rules"? What does that mean. All we can say is that the rules can be described as far as science currently is. There may be more science can do, and thus more can be described. These rules only apply for the current state of the universe we can percieve. Thus, before the singularity known as the Big Bang, those rules may not apply. Other rules may apply, or no rules may apply, but we can't know, and there's not a lot of purpose in arguing over it. It is not necessarily beyond our comprehension, but it is beyond our realm of knowledge. Science is religious in that, as Kurt Godel showed in the early 20th Century, all maths is dependent on accepted axioms, and thus so is science. It depends on an accepted, shared, worldview, and appeals to a coherence theory of truth rather than a correspondence theory. You're desperation for explainations of 'origins' is religious, and, I fear, going to cause you philosophical problems unless you let it go. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia - Venom 10:50 pm UTC 06/19/07 |
| Next: | Maybe One Wee Small Comment Here, Nothing Really - pidunk 09:22 pm UTC 06/22/07 |
| Thread: |
|