Looking at the complexity of their posts on other threads, I'm lucky I didn't embarrass myself. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I argued it is as good of an ultimate explanation as any. — Down The Rabbit Hole
That does sound like Varela: — Joshs
“ It is perhaps is best to start with the notion of a state or phase space — Joshs
Can there be an explanation that does not admit further inquiry, even in principle? — jorndoe
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. — Max Planck
As far as I can tell, it's merely a woo-of-the-gaps ex post facto self-flattering rationalization for violating the mediocrity principle (à la teleology (causal finalism), cosmic (metaphysical) PSR). :nerd:What say you naysayers? Can you find fault with the anthropic principle? :smile: — Pop
Except that the "laws of physics" only refer to the invariant structures of our physical models which are strongly correlated with observations of regularities of the universe but are not "caused" by, or properties of, the universe. Only our physical models are "anthropic" because they are man-made to suit human purposes (limitations).Change the laws of physics a little ( 5% ) and the universe would collapse - Would not be as it is, and so neither would we? — Pop
Except that the "laws of physics" only refer to the invariant structures of our physical models which are highly correlated with observations of regularities of the universe but are not "caused" by the universe. — 180 Proof
Check the pre-hominid fossil record.Do you have territory without maps? — Pop
No doubt. On this basis – conflation of epistemology with ontology (i.e. fallacious reifications e.g. platobic forms) – idealism only concerns the imaginary and not the factual, and is thus useless except for idle speculations and religious (e.g. woo-of-the gaps) apologetics.For an idealist the maps are the territory.
For an idealist the maps are the territory.
No doubt. On this basis – conflation of epistemology with ontology (i.e. fallacious reifications e.g. platobic forms) – idealism only concerns the imaginary and not the factual, and is thus useless except for idle speculations and religious (e.g. woo-of-the gaps) apologetics. — 180 Proof
Except that the "laws of physics" only refer to the invariant structures of our physical models which are highly correlated with observations of regularities of the universe but are not "caused" by the universe. Only our physical models are "anthropic" because they are man-made to suit human purposes — 180 Proof
This is a first cause, I'm not drawing any conclusions ( god ) from the cause.
Personally I believe ours would be a bubble universe caused in a larger big bang that created many universes, but this is immaterial to the topic at hand. — Pop
Not knowing the foundation of reality is a real bummer! — Pop
I agree that the idea of a 'spontaneous production of something from nowhere' is interesting with regard to how anything ever came into existence at all. — Jack Cummins
How can we explain the existence and development of life at all? — Jack Cummins
The sequence of subsequent states evolving according to the dynamical rule describes a
trajectory in state space. In the case of continuous time, the system is defined as a flow.” — Joshs
I agree that the idea of a 'spontaneous production of something from nowhere' is interesting with regard to how anything ever came into existence at all — Jack Cummins
We don't need omniscience to know something. And curiosity is also a thing. — jorndoe
you're still confusing (your) maps with the territory. Re: anthropic fallacy (on the basis of a misplaced concreteness fallacy in your assumptions). — 180 Proof
That's like saying "signals without noise" are fundamental (or even that noise is only emergent from / dependent upon signals) which is completely inconsistent with e.g. entropy. A glance at the starry night sky, for instance, also shows what's (more) fundamental than "information".Have you ever considered whether information is the fundamental stuff? That everything is a system in the process of accumulating and integrating information? — Pop
That's like saying "signals without noise" — 180 Proof
So "information" is a fundamental stuff - it will be a factor at rock bottom, though it can not exist on its own - must exist as the description of something ( the form giving co-element of something ). — Pop
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.