Yep, if history is a reliable record.

No specific issue I want to discuss; just thought it might be an interesting convo piece.

Why are the miracles comprehensive as in touches all the major branches of science + math and also anticipatory in re them? It's as if Jesus knew he had to break the laws of all the sciences we know of in the 21^st century and also mess with math ... later ... vicariously? Is he coming ... back? :lol:

Edited the OP

I wanted to copy that predicate logic statement. It can't be done! :lol:

:up: I'm unaware of the reason for the inference from improbable to agency (god/man behind the curtain). Improbable doesn't imply impossible. Now if a person didn't buy a lottery ticket and won the jackpot we have strong justification to employ the phrase "some kinda weird shit is goin' down bruh!"

@180 Proof & @Gnomon

Corrigendum (of sorts)

In Christianity and by extension in religion as a whole, there's ample room for the skeptic ( re Doubting Thomas) - the irrational (blind faith) acknowledges and includes in its fold the rational (reason) and it only seems fair that this basic courtesy be reciprocated by reason (in its modern avatar, science).

What sayest thou?

C'mon, amigo, that's like saying the struggle for health against illness "is a lost cause" — 180 Proof

Your honor, I believe the trick to good health is to get the right disease. :lol:

How does reducing, or overcoming, "irrationality" "invariably blows up in our faces"? Explain how "working with" alchemy, for instance, makes chemistry "better". — 180 Proof

Those are tough questions your honor :smile:

The struggle against Foolery (re 180 Proof) is a lost cause, you know that. Simple math based on the fact that most people are fools irrational. We're all mad sir! :cool:

So "bringing together" e.g. astronomy & astrology (or chemistry & alchemy) is, in your mind, good for what??? — 180 Proof

When we combine these various worldviews, we're in essence trying to harmonize the rational with the irrational; let's face it, irrationality plays a big part in our lives and better to work with it than against it for the simple reason that that strategy invariably blows up in our face. Too, who's to say, chaos (irrationality) is order (rationality) undeciphered (ununderstood)?

What sayest thou?

:up:

Good move o grandmaster. So Enformationism basically brings together the various strands of worldviews/philosophies out there, two major ones being science and religion, and unites them (metanarrative/holism) into a whole! There is a grandeur in this which appeals to me and perhaps others as well. Godspeed mon ami, godspeed!

Harm has (classically) been defined in terms of suffering. So if you cause suffering, you're harming.

You made a claim and it seems possible. How did I miss the point and I couldn't possibly be begging the/any question because ...

Proof for modal realism (courtesy St. Anselm of Canterbury)

1. All possible worlds is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"

2. If all possible worlds doesn't exist then all possible worlds isn't "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"

Ergo,

3. All possible worlds exists (1, 2 modus tollens)

Bingo. Right on the money there, Smith. — Wayfarer

:smile:

And don't get me wrong, modal realism is certainly an interesting position... just not a particularly widely held one (as far as I can tell, at any rate). — deletedmemberbcc

I haven't been able to get me hands on arguments for modal realism - I assume it's just a position one adopts, kinda like how one believes in God sans any proof. Perhaps we could a variation of Anselm's ontological proof (for theism) to prove all possible worlds exist; after all, it does make sense to say that all possible worlds is "that than which nothiny greater can be conceived" and since it wouldn't be that if it doesn't exist, it (all possible worlds) exists.

Danke for the comment. Please read my reply to deletedmemberbcc (vide supra). I appreciate you trying to keep it real (using science, which is at present the judge of what is real and not real ,to weigh in on controversial metaphysical issues is done in good faith.

Heisenberg's remarks are interesting. Very Aristotelian. Aristotle, as per a podcast I'm listening to, invented the notions of potential and actual to harmonize Parmenides (no change) and Hercalitus (all change).

Chance what? It's only a property, a descriptor, a modifier in need of a referent that contextualizes the question "Is chance a cause?" My answer (again): Chance events are occasionally causes ... of other events. (e.g. radioactive decay). — 180 Proof

:ok:

thanks for clearing that up. I cannot fathom anything beyond the agree/disagree continuum... — Changeling

We're all in the same boat mate! The song is like a website - you havta know how to listen to it!

My destiny is to have no destiny?! :chin:

Don't hold your breath, Smith. Past is prologue with this old "Enformer". :smirk: — 180 Proof

:smile: You mean to say Gnomon's reading The Book of Life backwards! Awesome! :cool:

:smile: @Gnomon is no fool. If anything his website which I visit on occasion and his posts indicate erudition, intelligence and experience . I can't wait to hear his response. The fact that this battle of wits between the two of you has remained amicable & educational is testament to his and of course your wisdom. Don't be so dismissive 180 Proof. :smile:

Does this mean you agree or disagree? Your statement is quite obtuse... — Changeling

Well, I would have to agree.

↪180 Proof I was asking for your views on Moore's argument ...
— Agent Smith
I think it's irrelevant to ethics (re: "goodness"). — 180 Proof

:up:

Given that we're doing metaphysics, I suppose my and others' very non-metaphysical criticisms are out of place. Reminds of @Bartricks's rule: it hasta make sense and from my interactions with your philosophy, it makes sense alright. Positing entities and forces e.g. Enformy are part and parcel of theorizing/hypothesizing, a very scientific activity. So here's what I think is the good news - Enformationism explains well enough the goings on in the world; now the bad news - Enformationism doesn't make any predictions which could be tested. Is me foot in me mouth? Have I cleared you of all charged and still declared you guilty?

:up:

I don't consider myself destiny material mon ami! A person who has a destiny is a great person and no, I'm not an ape. :cool:

What? Me thread has been moved to the lounge? How depressing!

We aren't making any progress Jack - you seem to concur with my views, more or less that is.

What do you think The Lounge is Jack? :smile:

I was asking for your views on Moore's argument; didn't mean to say you were a subscriber to Moore.

I read the Wikipedia article. His argument is basically this:

What is good?

X is good if X possesses the property Y [we usually stop here, but not Moore]

Moore asks, why is Y-ness good?

For every property P that defines good, the question "why is P good?" can be asked - there's no end (it goes on ad infinitum).

The more the merrier, eh?

I'm not ruling out chance in phenomena, I just don't think it can be a cause.

It is what it is! :cool:

C'mon guys & gals. Principia Ethica was written/published in 1903 (120 years ago). Have we learned nothing in 1.2 centuries?

I would like to ask you why a perfectly serviceable definition based on joy/suffering is circular (re Moore)?

Does Moore mean that good is bringing joy to people, you included, is circular? I'm using yer definition and looking at Moore's book's title Principia Ethica, he means business i.e. he's not making shit up.

Interesting. But I wanna know why Moore thinks good is (just) good? What are the implications of this claim for ethics? Carrying an empty sack?

Good can't be defined? That's a really nice place to start a discussion on ethics, oui?

Good is good? :chin:

You're on a roll! :cool:

Random (stochastic) events are unpredictable but unpredictable events are not necessarily (or usually) random. Events can have effects. "Chance" is a property of some events. On occasion, chance events cause effects (e.g. stochastic processes). — 180 Proof

:up: I agree. Consider the following then. Take a die, any die (do you play Ludo?), and roll it n times (don't waste yer time actually doing it of course; plenty of math videos out there where people perform this experiment + your time is too precious ta waste on silly stuff like this :smile: )
Record the numbers that show up. As n increases, the experimental probability (the frequency of the numbers that you actually get) will approach the theoretical probability (the predicted frequency under the assumption that the die is behaving randomly). Rolling a die is random for all intents and purposes is the conclusion.


However, the cause of the die turning up a 2 or a 6 or 6 or any other number consists of the force you apply on the die, the roughness of the table, etc.

Chance describes behavior, is not the cause of a phenomenon/object.

Muchas gracias.

Enjoyed the vid. Sean Carroll, one of my favorite celeb physicists.

I guess, in the context of the video, I'm asking what was the cause of the low entropy state of the Big Bang + what triggered the low entropy $\to$ high entropy movement?

Predestination - what criteria do we lay down for it? Does it mean chance, no such thing?

That's what I've been trying to say all along. WTF?
— Agent Smith

Yeah, alright,
It is an error to think evolution involves chance.
— Banno
was too strong; should have been more like "It is an error to think evolution is nothing but chance". — Banno

:grin: The article is quite clear - genetic mutations are random. However mutations have specific causes - mutagens. Chance is not the cause of mutations (the existence of the universe).

On a different note, selection pressures are random; can you predict what the next selection pressure for life on earth will be? If you can't, evolution is all chance.

Superb! :clap: :clap:

I believe your arch foe is William of Occam; metaphysics was always a bit superfluous.

What if I told you that Enformy is a phantasm, an illusion like e.g. the Wagon Wheel effect? How would you respond?

No, that's not what i claimed.

As for black-and-white fallacies, what, pray tell, are the other alternatives to god (creator) and chance in re how the universe came to be?
— Agent Smith

Evolution.

It is an error to think evolution involves chance — Banno

So, you can predict evolution's selection pressure parameters and the mutagen-mutation correlation is +1? Can you explain ... please?

I think 180 cut to the heart of it; asking what caused the creation, beginning, or origin of the universe when we have not actually established that there ever was a creation, beginning, or origin of the universe is putting the cart before the horse (all we know with any confidence is that the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state some 13.8 billion years ago- what, if anything, preceded that is not known or understood).

And of course its fun to speculate and imagine, beyond what can currently be established, just so long as we're clear that's what we're doing — busycuttingcrap

:up: The point is I've heard people say the universe coming into existence is a fluke and that is as much of an explanation as saying the Putin was born by chance; no, Putin was born because his mom and dad made love.

Do you have an argument? I would like to hear it, danke.


To reiterate, Putin's mom and dad met by chance, but the cause of his existence was mom + dad (in bed). @Jack Cummins, predestination)

I'm not trying to surreptitiously push for theism (@Gnomon); it's just that chance simply can't be a cause (read my reply to neospectraltoast and busycuttingcrap).

@jgill Thanks for the link. What do you make of my Putin example. Does it capture the role of chance in evolution and how it isn't a cause?

Good article.

The emphasis on chance comes about when one tries explaining that evolution is not teleological. That gets twisted to the idea that evolution is nothing but chance. — Banno

That's what I've been trying to say all along. WTF?