Yes yes, the Nature of nature (Spinoza).Metaphysics concerns the nature of physical world. — Cartuna
The idea inherent in all idealistic metaphysics–that the world is in some sense a product of the mind–is thus turned into its opposite: the mind is a product of the world, of the processes of nature. Hence, according to popular Darwinism, nature does not need philosophy to speak for her: nature, a powerful and venerable deity, is ruler rather than ruled. Darwinism ultimately comes to the aid of rebellious nature in undermining any doctrine, theological or philosophical, that regards nature itself as expressing a truth that reason must try to recognize. The equating of reason with nature, by which reason is debased and raw nature exalted, is a typical fallacy of the era of rationalization. Instrumentalized subjective reason either eulogizes nature as pure vitality or disparages it as brute force, instead of treating it as a text to be interpreted by philosophy that, if rightly read, will unfold a tale of infinite suffering. Without committing the fallacy of equating nature and reason, mankind must try to reconcile the two.
In traditional theology and metaphysics, the natural was largely conceived as the evil, and the spiritual or supernatural as the good. In popular Darwinism, the good is the well-adapted, and the value of that to which the organism adapts itself is unquestioned or is measured only in terms of further adaptation. However, being well adapted to one’s surroundings is tantamount to being capable of coping successfully with them, of mastering the forces that beset one. Thus the theoretical denial of the spirit’s antagonism to nature–even as implied in the doctrine of interrelation between the various forms of organic life, including man–frequently amounts in practice to subscribing to the principle of man’s continuous and thoroughgoing domination of nature. Regarding reason as a natural organ does not divest it of the trend to domination or invest it with greater potentialities for reconciliation. On the contrary, the abdication of the spirit in popular Darwinism entails the rejection of any elements of the mind that transcend the function of adaptation and consequently are not instruments of self-preservation. Reason disavows its own primacy and professes to be a mere servant of natural selection. On the surface, this new empirical reason seems more humble toward nature than the reason of the metaphysical tradition. Actually, however, it is arrogant, practical mind riding roughshod over the ‘useless spiritual,’ and dismissing any view of nature in which the latter is taken to be more than a stimulus to human activity. The effects of this view are not confined to modern philosophy. — Max Horkheimer, The Eclipse of Reason
Ahem, Brian Cox is not "scientific culture". Paul Davies, for instance, wouldn't attribute "creator" to nature. Pro tip: All swans ain't white, sir. :eyes:I was listening to a promo for Brian Cox's interesting show on the Cosmos last night when I heard him say that 'we are the most amazing things that nature has created'. It occured to me that no Christian would ever say that. In the Christian worldview, nature is created, not creator. Scientific culture has elevated nature to the role formerly occupied by God, endowing it with creative agency. — Wayfarer
Wtf? :roll: Life increases disorder (re: erosion (e.g. compare extant meteor-impacts features on the surfaces Earth to Luna), mass extinctions that produce hydrocarbons, greenhouse effects, anthropogenic climate change, etc). Also, entropy is the tendency of disorder not to decrease especially in thermodynamically closed systems. For example, you're not getting any younger (or smarter), Wayf. :mask:As far asscience[Wayfarer] is concerned, the second law of thermodynamics is iron-clad, the inevitable tendency of nature is always towards greater disorder. Life itself is an anomaly, 'negentropic'...
They can only be determined to be reasonable or not, based on Logic and incomplete evidence. — Gnomon
Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.....
Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence. — Paul Davies
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency.
I'm a naturalist for whom nature is self-explanatory — 180 Proof
The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency.
The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
The second is a strange statement,considering that science is not a matter of faith at all, but of provisional hypotheses. — Janus
His argument is that until now, scientists simply assume scientific laws, without exploring why they are the way they are. That's why he is saying science 'rests on faith' - faith in scientific laws. I think that's a hangover from science's Christian origins. (See Nancy Cartwright No God, No Laws.) — Wayfarer
I take it as axiomatic that the predominant belief in secular culture is that 'life arose by chance'. — Wayfarer
This is that the Universe gives rise to sentient life-forms as a way of discovering horizons of being that could not be realised any other way. You find ideas like that in Tielhard du Chardin, Henri Bergson, and others. It's neither creationist on the one side, nor materialist on the other. — Wayfarer
I think scientific laws are formulated to describe observed invariant phenomena. — Janus
This seems like an anthropomorphization of the universe, as though it had some intention or wish, or at minimum, an internal striving, to bring life into being..It seems most plausible to me to think that this kind of thinking is a case of us projecting our own natures out into the universe. — Janus
Given the nature of the basic chemical elements and the inevitable diversity of conditions that can come about in an immense universe, the arising of life seems inevitable. — Janus
No argument there. But what do you make of that statement 'the whole modern conception of nature is founded on the illusion that so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural order'? Why does Wittgenstein think this is an 'illusion'? — Wayfarer
That's how it must seem to us in this day and age but do please notice the implicit division between 'our own natures' and 'the Universe', as if these are separable. But really they're not, as nature is not something we're outside of, or apart from. The idea of being a subject in a world of objects is just that - an idea. An idea which then becomes a condition. — Wayfarer
I wonder if much of these discussions about science being this or that could be alleviated by speaking of "habits", rather than "laws", as this latter term implies something of which there can be no exception. — Manuel
But we know circumstances in which such universal "laws", break down, in black holes or near the singularity. — Manuel
That is just another way of saying 'by chance'. The million-monkeys idea - give a million monkeys typewriters and enough time and they'll produce a manuscript. When in fact what you will get is an enormous pile of broken typewriters covered in shit. — Wayfarer
I think this is a good idea. If I remember rightly from long ago reading Peirce spoke this way. Hume point out there is no deductively valid reasoning to support our belief that the so-called laws of nature will continue to hold sway. On the other hand there is an enormously complex and coherent scientific picture, and no well-documented exceptions have been observed. — Janus
I could be wrong but I thought black holes were theoretical entities which were posited on account of our understanding of the laws of nature. I believe I've read that they have subsequently been observed, but I'm not sure. (I could search that but I can't be bothered). — Janus
I like Spinoza's deus sive natura ("God or nature'). For us nature is God indeed (but I don't agree with the pantheistic reading of Spinoza's idea) I agree that the great philosophers would likely have very different views if they were alive today..
I don't think what science tells us about the world should be blithely ignored or that we should believe in certain metaphysical notions just because they might "feel right" (which could just amount to serving our wishes regarding how we might like things to be). — Janus
All that's to say, nature is mind-boggling. That's a good thing, to me. — Manuel
His argument is that until now, scientists simply assume scientific laws, without exploring why they are the way they are. That's why he is saying science 'rests on faith' - faith in scientific laws. — Wayfarer
I think scientific laws are formulated to describe observed invariant phenomena. So, for example, minimally,the law of gravity is just the observed invariability of unsupported objects falling until they are supported. — Janus
I take it as axiomatic that the predominant belief in secular culture is that 'life arose by chance'. Once you dispense with the idea of divine creation or emanation or a divine origin of some kind, what is the alternative? It can only be physical or chemical necessity, a kind of chain reaction that starts and then simply grows according to natural laws. — Wayfarer
Scientists who study the origins of life see a middle way. Life is originated, not by random behavior of physical substances and not by divine intervention, but by a natural tendency toward self-organization. — T Clark
On the macro scale the universe appears to be deterministic — Janus
By which scientists, for example? — Wayfarer
Ever run across https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ ? — Wayfarer
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.