It's a reference to the idea that living beings are intrinsic to the Universe, and not simply the 'accidental outcome of the collocation of atoms' (Bertrand Russell's words.) — Wayfarer
:fire:I've known a lot of tough criminals over time and visited a number of jails and it has always struck me as interesting how many people involved in criminal justice are robust theists. Didn't stop them committing egregious crimes, however. — Tom Storm
As if "accidental outcomes" (pace Einstein) are not intrinsic to the universe. :smirk:... the idea that living beings are intrinsic to the Universe, and not simply the 'accidental outcome of the collocation of atoms ...' — Wayfarer
Psychologist George Kelly said what matters is not whether the universe exists, but what we can make of it.
— Joshs
Yes, but it's a basic fact that postmodernism rejects meta-narratives, so that tends to consign a great deal of what has been made of it in the past to the wastepaper basket. — Wayfarer
People kill, torture, punish and condemn
others based on such embedded assumptions that they don’t think matter to their daily choices — Joshs
I'm interested in a lot of things. — Tom Storm
A meta narrative is a claim to universal truth. — Joshs
Interesting. I can't think of a philosophy in which life is not significant in some way :chin:I guess what I’m asking is, do you think the difference between a philosophy that makes a place for the significance of life, and one that doesn’t, is significant? — Wayfarer
How about ...I'm interested in the possibility of a cosmic philosophy.
I guess what I’m asking is, do you think the difference between a philosophy that makes a place for the significance of life, and one that doesn’t, is significant? — Wayfarer
What I mean by cosmic philosophy, is a philosophy in which life is integral to the Cosmos, not an accidental byproduct of a meaningless process. (Although it's arguable that the term 'cosmos' insofar as it refers to 'a unified whole' is no longer meaningful.) — Wayfarer
This is very different from the naive realist view in which the unknown is comparable to 'unseen planets', because there is an ontological distinction in play between what is potentially real and what has been actualised (i.e. is determinate). — Wayfarer
Doesn't the Sorites Paradox call into question "determinateness" as a property or condition of "what exists"? Both sand-grains and sand dunes exist yet the difference between them (i.e. phase-transition) is indeterminate. — 180 Proof
What would be the ontological difference between a potentially real object and an actually real object? The idea of a potentially real object seems to conflate epistemic uncertainty with ontological uncertainty, something I would call a "naive idealist view". I don't think there is any ontological uncertainty, because it seems that any object can be structurally defined as a pure set, which is a determinate structure. Pure set theory can define all mathematical structures as pure sets, including the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. — litewave
There is a modal realist interpretation of quantum mechanics where all quantum possibilities are regarded as real/determinate - the many worlds interpretation, which currently seems to be the favorite interpretation with physicists. — litewave
What would be the ontological difference between a potentially real object and an actually real object? — litewave
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.