"The One" is unbounded nature (or existence) and materialism is one way of talking about, or describing, nature that explicitly excludes "immaterial" entities. — 180 Proof
In other words, 'signs of the holy sacred divine ...' are just, at minimum, expressions of human ignorance. Lord forgive me but again I agree with the ernestly confessing Bishop of Hippo. :pray: :sweat:'Miracles are not against nature but against what we know of nature' ~ St Augustine. — Wayfarer
Depends on what you mean by Newtonian mechanics as well as whether you separate philosophical interpretation, mathematical modeling, and applied technological predictive modeling.Also, I’d say Newtonian Mechanics is wrong. It gives the right answer to a certain number of decimal places but if you go far enough (10th decimal, 100th decimal), it gives an answer that disagrees with Relativity and with reality. — Art48
Newtonian mechanics didn't die by virtue of disproof. The old guard died off and the new crowd thought the previous thinking was too 'antiquated' while they performed the same modeling techniques under different labels. — substantivalism
Which part? That a paradigm shift resulted from a change in thinking coming from the younger generations or that a large majority of the same classical intellectual biases pervade how modern day physicists continue to model?That's not remotely true, that's a completely bonkers narrative that I would expect only from a flat earther. — flannel jesus
That depends on how you define Newtonian mechanics and what it means to say anything is 'Newtonian'. It can't merely be the mathematical structure as Newtonian mathematical models can be as statistical as quantum mechanical ones if not make use of the same mathematical machinery that such modern 'theories' make use of."they performed the same modeling techniques under different labels." - this sounds like you're saying "the model of relativity is just the model of Newtonian mechanics, under a different name." Is that not what you mean? — flannel jesus
I fail to see how this addresses my question. I say the minimum we must acknowledge is our consciousness and the sensations in it. Are you saying you'd add materialism to the list? The point of my video is that we never directly experience matter and so matter is a theoretical construct which explains what we directly experience, rather than what we directly experience.180 Proof: If you agree hard solipsism cannot be disproven, then wouldn’t the minimum that we must necessarily presuppose be our consciousness and sensations, and nothing else? — Art48
There are compelling grounds to doubt "solipsism" (e.g. disembodiment, immaterialism, brain-in-vat, etc) which suffice for dismissing it. — 180 Proof
It's almost right, i.e., it's wrong.Also, I’d say Newtonian Mechanics is wrong.
Well I say that beyond all doubt, above the Planck scale, shorter than Relativistic distances and slower than Relativistic velocities, "Newtonian Mechanics" is (almost) completely accurate. — 180 Proof
I'm saying we cannot with justification say something is supernatural. It may be a natural phenomena we don't understand yet (like lightening once was). I can't determine if you are agreeing or disagreeing in your response.I believe “supernatural” is a vacuous term because we do not yet know the limits of the natural world.
***
Physical laws and constants make explicit (some? many? most?) "limits of the natural world" and, after countless billions upon billions of experimental observations, that there is no evidence of violations of any physical laws is, imo, compelling grounds to doubt your "belief", Art. — 180 Proof
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.