At least one: "god" – (the) omni-providential agent.Given what you know about robotics and machine learning, do you think that there are jobs that can't be automated? — Josh Alfred
None after AGI has been achieved (i.e. post-Singularity).Are there one's that are going to be harder to automate than others? What are those jobs?
Well, to be even more precise, scientific theories cannot explain everything and whatever they explain they can only do so approximately.To be precise, science explains nothing ... — EnPassant
My candidate for the "fundamental level of existence" – the constitutive, dynamic ground state – is planck events (i.e. vacuum fluctuations / field excitations). As far as metaphysic goes, IMO this "fundamental physics' corresponds to the Democritean void (or natura naturans of Spinoza).The universe must have some kind of fundamental level of existence. In other words, it can't be reduced beyond a certain point. — AlienFromEarth
I'd only add 'to the degree "the meta-framework" is rational' (i.e. soundly inferential, coherent & self-consistent).A metaphysics is not a piece of evidence or a collection of facts to be compared against scientific claims. It’s the meta-framework within which scientific claims, facts and evidence are intelligible. Change the metaphysics and we don’t ‘disprove’ a science’s facts, we change their sense and relevance. — Joshs
A post from an old thread Ethics in four words ...To me, that describes what true spirituality is, when it is directed against injustice. — universeness
Ethical & political, respecticely.Flourish By Minimizing Harm.
Liberty By Minimizing Injustice. — 180 Proof
:up:Metaphysics is a discipline; imagination is a faculty. — Mww
Like breathing or a beating heart, defiance – striving – is involuntary. Conatus, will to power / amor fati, revolt. A 'happy warrior' does not succumb to the despair of "hope". :strong:As even though you are prepared for, or perhaps even expect the worse, you will continue to strive for the best, why is that? Is it more than mere forlorn hope? — universeness
This is neither a charitable nor close reading of what I actually wrote, Bob. I'm an Epicurean-Spinozist, after all, very much concerned with ontology, or the concept of what Clément Rosset calls "the Real". To paraphrase the beginning of my statement on 'metaphysics': it is an inquiry into criteria for differentiating 'what is necessarily not the case' from 'what is possibly the case' in the most general sense; thus, ontology, as I understand Epicurus/Spinoza, is an explanation of concepts for "the Real".You are basically saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that metaphysics doesn't actually get at ontology (like Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hegel, etc. thought): instead, it just is a useful model for experience. — Bob Ross
Translation: Physics (Aristotle et al), not metaphysics, "is a useful model of experience" (i.e. physical reality, or publicly intelligible aspect of the real, aka "nature"). Metaphysics consists in categorical criteria for making hypothetical explanations, or "useful models..."Metaphysics is not theoretical. — 180 Proof
Of course I do. 'Histories are ghost stories', which haunt us, whether or not we believe them.Do you not feel connected to those in the past that fought/died/failed/succeeded to do what they could to change peoples lives for the better? — universeness
Living things survive in spite of – not because of – their inevitably "doomed" state. Facticity. Entropy. Extinction. "The blues is life itself." "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." After all, there ain't no immaterialists in foxholes. :fire:Or do you think they should not have bothered trying as our species is doomed anyway?
Metaphysics, again as I understand it, proposes criteria for discerning 'impossible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality necessarily cannot be) from 'possible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality can be) - btw, I'm an actualist, not a possibilist - thereby concerning the most general states of affairs; unlike the sciences, which consist of testing models of how possible transformations of specific, physical (class, or domain, of) states of affairs from one to another (can be made to) happen, and thus is explanatory (even if only approximative, probabilistic), metaphysics explains only concepts abstracted from, and therefore useful for categorizing, (experience of(?)) 'how things are', and does not explain any facts of the matter. Metaphysics is not theoretical. — 180 Proof
:rofl:If the masses would just occupy the common ground between us all. — universeness
Yes – the late poet and critic (and friend in my bohemian 20s) Hayden Carruth had once described jazz that way. My daily habit of four-plus decades has also been, as @Vera Mont says, "my life-vest" despite drowning once or thrice.Discipline and letting go. — Amity
Did you listen to all five parts (video clips) of the interview? I've always admired her thinking and her essays but not so much her fiction even though Iris Murdoch was a fine novelist.The interview is fascinating. — Amity
Such as?something can be real to me but not real to someone else — A Realist
:up:... I think you must be confused. — unenlightened
As I wrote last year (click on my handle for context), another jackboot has dropped today:There's no question that Individual-1 committed tax fraud ... — 180 Proof
:100: :up:What happened to US politics is not in any sense tribal. A political faction, a bunch of yahoos united by nothing more than license to oppress another group, a deluded minority of underachievers dreaming of reclaimed privilege, those with actual privilege too jealous to share - these are not tribes. — Vera Mont
No.... And if so does it point to a creator? — simplyG
This question doesn't make sense.The question is what came before?
I think a subset of mathematics usefully describes subsets, or aspects, of reality and the rest (most) of mathematics does not. As suggested by Max Tegmark (David Deutsch, Seth Lloyd, Stephen Wolfram et al), the universe might be nothing more than a lower dimensional mathematical structure (i.e. a reality, n. naturata) imbedded in higher dimensional mathematical structures (i.e. the real,, n. naturans).... if maths can theoretically describe anything does that mean that reality is a subset of mathematics made manifest?
Not insofar as physical systems are (Quantun Turing) computable.Or is maths completely independent of the physical universe ...
I agree as I wrore above.... and it just so happens that some mathematics is good at describing some aspects of the physical universe ...
I don't understand what you mean here by "supercedes".... and in fact supersedes it?
:100: e.g. atoms & void / natura naturata & natura naturans. :fire:... nature is order AND chaos, so if God is nature then God is both order and chaos. — praxis
Strawman. If not, then cite an atheist who is also a scientist (i.e. astrophysicist / cosmologist) who makes this claim.[T]he atheist says science did it (the big bang created the universe etc). — simplyG
Short of total armageddon – in this scarcity-driven global civilization, my friend – how do you propose to get the "nefarious few" to relinquish "control over a divided and ill-informed global mass of people" who are, for the most part, "money tricked" (from Glasgow to Guangzhou, Brooklyn to Benin, Tel Aviv to Tazmania) by a 24/7 global, virtual menagerie of various hedonic treadmills schemes from cradle to grave? :chin:The removal of money as a means of exchange and the removal of the money trick and religion, as the main means by which a nefarious few, can gain control over a divided and ill-informed global mass of people. — universeness
