Goggle Wheeler's Cloud first, you may use that as your [the] reference point... . — 3017amen
It's a song. — T Clark

Ha! It's a abstract song (or story in your case) about worm holes. You know, seeing that music itself being abstract and all, seems to be as perplexing as cosmology :joke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

if mathematics and natural laws are stories, are we living in a mystical, fictitious or abstract world of stories? I mean that in both literally and figuratively. — 3017amen

Yes.

I use the term from here: ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure-Simon Blackburn. — 3017amen

Sorry. I still don't know what this means.

Should one wonder about causation then? — 3017amen

One should always wonder about causation, but I don't know how that connects with what I wrote.

Existence, for you then (as you described), could be simply abstract, not really real. Is that, in a sense, metaphysics? Or, is it some sort of Platonic existence where mathematical structures exist? Those questions seem rhetorical, but they're not. I'm just trying to piece together the rationale there... . — 3017amen

What was there before humanity - a big bucket full of goo without the bucket. All one undifferentiated thing - the Tao. We came along and started making distinctions, abstractions - trees, quarks, love. That's the world we know. Is that real? Sure, but the goo comes first. Lao Tzu wrote about the Tao:

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

Goggle Wheeler's Cloud first, you may use that as your [the] reference point... . — 3017amen

Ok, now I got the right one. On the surface, PAP reads a lot like Taoism. Lao Tzu might agree with just about every statement Wheeler makes related to it. Difference (I think) - The Tao Te Ching is metaphysics, a way of thinking about the world. I think Wheeler proposes that PAP is physics - an actual description of reality. If it is, it aught to be testable. Has it been tested? Has anyone tried?

if mathematics and natural laws are stories, are we living in a mystical, fictitious or abstract world of stories? I mean that in both literally and figuratively. — 3017amen
Yes. — T Clark

Can you please provide an example of that? I'm not sure I understand completely. While I can appreciate being sussinct, philosophy lives in words. Or, as you say, stories :joke:

I use the term from here: ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure-Simon Blackburn. — 3017amen
Sorry. I still don't know what this means. — T Clark

Simon Blackburn is an atheist who seems to think the natural world, much like yourself (me included) is/has somewhat of an abstract existence. This is the dude here:

Should one wonder about causation then? — 3017amen
One should always wonder about causation — T Clark

Why should one always wonder about causation?

What was there before humanity - a big bucket full of goo without the bucket. All one undifferentiated thing - the Tao. We came along and started making distinctions, abstractions - trees, quarks, love. That's the world we know. Is that real? Sure, but the goo comes first. Lao Tzu wrote about the Tao:

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God. — T Clark

Being hidden but always present, could be interpreted as Greek Platonism, no?

Thanks T Clark!

philosophy lives in words. Or, as you say, stories — 3017amen

What was there before there was abstract thought, language? Before there were living things. Were there trees before there was anyone or anything to see them, care about them, eat their leaves, climb in them, name them? Galaxies? Quarks? It makes sense to say "no," all there was was a big bucket of goo without the bucket.

Again - this is metaphysics. It's not true or false. It's a useful way of looking at things. Not the only way.

What is your justification for joining religion with natural/physical sciences? They are antithetical.
— tim wood
Disagree with this. — T Clark

Assuming you have a grasp of what science is and what religion is, what is your justification, & etc.?

Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world?
— 3017amen
Is anything else possible? Or even conceivable?
— tim wood
Agree with this. — T Clark

Agree with what? If you mean any no-abstract analysis of the natural world is possible, what would be one?

Try any discussion that includes no abstraction. A non-issue as an ordinary practical matter, but the ordinary and practical not our topic, nor its field nor ground. My point being that without care as to what is meant, conclusions become nonsense. And I care about such things, though not everyone does.

TClark!

Thank you so much for your contribution thus far. Tomorrow I am going to take the liberty to summarize some minor concepts we uncovered, through wondering/questioning.

To that end some of the questions were either glossed over, not answered, or perhaps dismissed. The main theme though, is relative to what it means to apperceive abstract structures in life, and what the implications are to the human condition.

One ironic thing is, although Mr Blackburn is an atheist, he nonetheless postulated his/this notion of abstract existence which by definition, suggests a metaphysical realm in nature or in the natural world of some sort... .

I am going to take the time to study more of his philosophy. It may be that I misinterpreted his intent. He comes across as a highly articulated speaker. And so like many things in life, as I've alluded to earlier, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'll pick and choose from his philosophy that which applies to our discussion here.

mathematics is called the "Queen of the Sciences" — jgill

The 'queen of sciences' used to be theology. — Wayfarer

I was unaware of that, thanks. It was Gauss who coined the phrase I quoted and he is a mathematical deity! :cool:

He also claimed number theory to be the Queen of Mathematics. :roll:

:confused: You lost me ...

Thank you so much for your contribution thus far. — 3017amen

I've enjoyed the discussion.

T Clark!

Another wonderful day in the neighborgood! Ok, I shall summarize (our discussion), of what might be considered as the most salient of points made, by way of one post at a time. It has become quite clear that when discussing religion, humanities and natural sciences, we keep coming back to the nature of our reality (existence).

I think we know the question(s) of why there are patterns in nature and why there are simple mathematical schemes in same, lies outside of physics. And so it seems, we are forced to put our metaphysicians hat on. Why that in itself, keeps rearing its head is not always the question as I've pointed out. But instead, the questions concerning reality include more questions about causation (which we know can easily lead to regressive reasoning and an infinite tower of turtles-which is fine if one choses that path). And so it seems rather important to summarize or categorize one so-called analogous method at a time.

What I mean is, philosophically, that lead me to the idea of Structuralism, which in turn lead me to atheist Simon Blackburn's take on same, thanks to : The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

You analogized that interpretation of Structuralism through Taoism/complimentary opposing forces in nature. That seems consistent with the tenets of Structuralism. I take no exception to that. But instead, I wanted to parse this idea of 'abstract structure', and what that means relative to the human condition (oddly enough, structuralism was heir to existentialism). Hence my questions about how we ourselves, might be more akin to the metaphysical, than the physical.

If mathematics in science/physics, are used to describe/explain much of the natural world, and considering the fact that it (math) is an abstract metaphysical language, what other things in life are considered abstract and metaphysical? Concerning our own ontology, the answer is consciousness (aka Idealism). And that leads to other abstract metaphysical features of or from consciousness:

1. intuition
2. the color red
3. wonder
4. curiosity
5. the will
6. causation
7. somethingness v. nothingness (intention)
8. mathematics
9. music theory
10. love

Then, (no pun intended) it seems the why's of those existing things rear their heads:

1. Do any of these features or properties of consciousness confer any biological survival advantages?
2. Is the knowledge of the laws of gravity required to survive in the jungle?
3. Does the universal language of music/the study of music theory confer any biological advantages?
4. What advantages are there to ask questions about causation (are there survival advantages associated with curiosity)?
5.What does it mean to perceive something as abstract?
6. Is the concept of God abstract?
7. Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?"
8. Is Time itself abstract (it is certainly paradoxical)?

What other things in life are considered "abstract structures"?

It would be helpful to all if before you asked any questions you first thought about what you were asking, second used (your) language intelligibly, and third asked questions that made sense.

E.g.:

I think we know the question(s) of why there are patterns in nature and why there are simple mathematical schemes in same, lies outside of physics. — 3017amen

Not so, they are what physics is all about.

And,

1. Do any of these features or properties of consciousness confer any biological survival advantages? — 3017amen

What is a biological survival advantage?

And so on through your whole post.

Agree with what? If you mean any no-abstract analysis of the natural world is possible, what would be one? — tim wood

They are different ways of looking at the same world. Science is wonderful, but it has shortcomings. There are ways of knowing the world that are not scientific. Religion is one of them.

Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world?
— 3017amen
Is anything else possible? Or even conceivable?
— tim wood
Agree with this.
— T Clark
Agree with what? If you mean any no-abstract analysis of the natural world is possible, what would be one? — tim wood

I was agreeing with you.

I think we know the question(s) of why there are patterns in nature and why there are simple mathematical schemes in same, lies outside of physics. — 3017amenNot so, they are what physics is all about. — tim wood

Mr. Wood,

I'm sorry, you did not read it correctly. Hint: "Why" is in the sentence. That's the important distinction. Physics doesn't care about the why's of existence. They are concerned about how.

Thanks anyway though!

Do any of these features or properties of consciousness confer any biological survival advantages? — 3017amenWhat is a biological survival advantage?

And so on through your whole post. — tim wood

Awesome! Great question!

Let's start with the laws of gravity. Is that knowledge needed to dodge falling objects in the jungle?

There are ways of knowing the world that are not scientific. Religion is one of them. — T Clark

You won't mind my noting this is very problematic. I would say that religion is one way of assigning values in the world. But knowing the world? How? Please feel free to define terms.

Let's start with the laws of gravity. Is that knowledge needed to dodge falling objects in the jungle? — 3017amen

Non-human creatures large and small live in the jungle. Name one that knows anything about any laws of gravity.

As to hows an whys, There is in your post a whole raft of terms that you need to define. Lacking them, discussions quickly become nonsense. For example, what does, "patterns in nature" mean? What does, "simple mathematical schemes in same," mean?

You won't mind my noting this is very problematic. I would say that religion is one way of assigning values in the world. But knowing the world? How? Please feel free to define terms. — tim wood

Do you really doubt that religion is a way of knowing the world or just that it is a legitimate way of knowing the world?

Humans know the world through our human bodies using human sensory organs, human nervous systems, human endocrine systems, and lots of other human stuff . We have expanded the reach of our senses and minds using human technology. We don't know reality, we know human reality. Reality as we know it is inseparable from our humanity. Science as it's usually practiced doesn't recognize that. Other ways of knowing, including religion, do. I am not a theist and religion is not a way I use to understand the world, but I don't dismiss it either.

What I mean is, philosophically, that lead me to the idea of Structuralism, which in turn lead me to atheist Simon Blackburn's take on same, thanks to ↪Manuel : The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. — 3017amen

You've talked a lot about structures and structuralism. Every time you have I've responded that I don't know what that means. I've read the writeup on structuralism in Wikipedia. Here's what Blackburn says (from Wikipedia)

[T]he belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

The first sentence seems trivial, almost tautological. I either don't know what "constant laws of abstract structure" means or I don't think they exist. Humans impose structures on reality. It has none of it's own.

Hence my questions about how we ourselves, might be more akin to the metaphysical, than the physical. — 3017amen

Are you tired of me saying "I don't know what this means"?

If mathematics in science/physics, are used to describe/explain much of the natural world, and considering the fact that it (math) is an abstract metaphysical language, what other things in life are considered abstract and metaphysical? Concerning our own ontology, the answer is consciousness (aka Idealism). And that leads to other abstract metaphysical features of or from consciousness: — 3017amen

I don't know what you're trying to get at and I don't see what any of this has to do with structuralism. Ditto for the rest of your post. I don't see how all the questions you ask are related to each other or structuralism.

Non-human creatures large and small live in the jungle. Name one that knows anything about any laws of gravity. — tim wood

Sure. But we're not non-human.

For example, what does, "patterns in nature" mean? What does, "simple mathematical schemes in same," mean? — tim wood

As I've said earlier, the practice of engineering et.al.

I don't know what you're trying to get at and I don't see what any of this has to do with structuralism. Ditto for the rest of your post. I don't see how all the questions you ask are related to each other or structuralism. — T Clark

Abstract structures are metaphysical.

We don't know reality, we know human reality. — T Clark

Unfortunately, that's incorrect, since for one, consciousness has yet to be explained. Using your words it would be more accurate to say that we don't know reality and we don't know human reality, hence metaphysics (among other thought processes).

Think of it this way, as Einstein alluded, if we were all Dr. Spock's or 'Spock-like', we wouldn't contemplate those kinds of things...there would be no need. Does a fish wonder about philosophy?

Unfortunately, that's incorrect — 3017amen

Nuh-unh.

Think of it this way, as Einstein eluded, if we were all Dr. Spock's or 'Spock-like', we wouldn't contemplate those kinds of things...there would be no need. — 3017amen

Commander Data thought about those things all the time.

By the way, "nuh-unh" is included in the Oxford English Dictionary.

So did Charlie the whale . But he was just a big fish in a little pond, kind of like this forum....LOL

By the way, "nuh-unh" is included in the Oxford English Dictionary. — T Clark

Much like you, I don't know what that means. Correction, you're probably getting tired of me saying that... LOL

I don't know what that means. — 3017amen

According to the OED, and any 6 year old you talk to, nuh-unh means "No; used especially to rebuff or contradict."

Charlie the whale. — 3017amen

Looked it up. The only reference was a song. Couldn't find any lyrics.

s I've said earlier, the practice of engineering et.al. — 3017amen

Your reference is a dead end. Can you not answer for yourself?

Charlie the whale.
— 3017amen

Looked it up. The only reference was a song. Couldn't find any lyrics. — T Clark

Look harder, you' ll find that music is metaphysical in that it has abstract structure (s). Quite enjoyable too! You know, it's kind of a universal language

Do you really doubt that religion is a way of knowing the world or just that it is a legitimate way of knowing the world? — T Clark

No doubt at all. What can religion know about the world and how? Any examples?

Your reference is a dead end. Can you not answer for yourself — tim wood

I already did! You should have turned left at the cul-de-sac :joke:

Looked it up. The only reference was a song. Couldn't find any lyrics. — T Clark

Look harder, you' ll find that music is metaphysical. Quite enjoyable too! You know, it's kind of a universal language — 3017amen

@T Clark.I think it's pretty clear from this thread and others that 3017 has posted to that 3017 simply is not interested in any sort of reasonable exchange. What do you say?

I already did! — 3017amen

Where when? The site you referenced is under development, a dead end.