Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion Subject: Re: Rosen on reason, etc. Message-ID: <765@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 20:54:47 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.765 Posted: Mon Mar 25 20:54:47 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 06:17:51 EST References: <1074@decwrl.UUCP> <5266@utzoo.UUCP>, <720@pyuxd.UUCP> <5303@utzoo.UUCP>, <749@pyuxd.UUCP> <5332@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 109 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:1568 net.religion:6287 >> Gee, this is funny. Am I assuming that "all things are >> knowable" (I never said that) when I refer to things we don't >> have enough information about? > No, when you are referring to those things, you are not (necessarily) > assuming that. What I am assuming is that there are certain things which > are not knowable. Why does the world exist? Why is Plank's constant > *this* value and not *that* one? Why aren't there more stars? Why is > there a force of gravity anyway? These are all examples of questions > whose answers (ignoring direct revelation from God, say) are not knowable. > There may be no reason for any of these. There may *be* a reason for all > of these. But, whatever the answer is, it seems clear that we won't > ever know it. "Seems clear" is an assumption, too. But remember that there is no answer to a "why" in the absence of a directed causative will. Thus to ask and to expect a certain answer is to be presumptive in the extreme. >> Or are YOU assuming something >> when you *assert* that there ARE (!!!) some things that it IS >> simply IMPOSSIBLE to ever know? I don't know if that's true, >> so I keep seeking and learning. You assume that it is true, so >> what do you do? > Ah, I get to stop wasting my time with a certain class of questions. You mean the "why" questions I was referring to above? For the same reasons? >> It's funny because you're doing exactly what I've been >> accusing so many others of doing. Looks like you're not that >> different, and perhaps your belief systems should be classified >> with the same name. :-? > Looks like you are back to being omniscient and knowing what I am doing again. > Before you go out and claim this again, I think that you had better get a > better understanding of what it is that I am doing. I am not claiming that > any models I build are true in some absolute sense. I don't even have any > firm opinions about the existence of ``absolute truth''. What I do claim is > that my models are useful for getting something done. Almost all of the > time this implies that my models have to be consistent with reality as I > perceive it. There are times, though, when even that does not apply. If > I am debugging circuit boards I catch myself thinking that ``the current > goes along here, and then down there'' and so on and so forth. Thinking that > ``the electrons vibrate'' is more consistent with reality as I perceive it, > but even that is a model. Electrons aren't things. Shall I try to think of > them as locuses for particular behaviour? Better, but shucks, it just > isn't incredibly useful. I am willing to put up with inaccuracies for the > sake of utility. "Camelot!" "It's only a model." You make a valid distinction here, but all words are just sounds and etchings that represent models of reality. Do they do so accurately or not is the question? Are they used erroneously? > This brings one back to Byron Howes on religion. Suppose you consider all > religions as models of reality which people use to get things done. The > question then is, why do people pick different religions? Presumably > because they want to get different things done -- or the same thing done in > different ways. Inherant in certain religions is the belief that ``This is > the ONE and ONLY religion which is TRUE in the ABSOLUTE SENSE''. Other > religions do not have this belief. I do not think that you have ever > grasped the implications of this, or you would not be asking me if I go > out and ``believe whatever I would like'' -- because in a very real sense > I have been claiming that *everybody* does this *all* of the time. Interesting notion about models. The questions then revolve around the erroneousness of certain dogmatic models. > This is another aspect of the Christian/Materialist debates which > others (including Christians such as Byron Howes) may find ludicrous. > Certain Christians are claiming the absolute truth of the existence > of God and the Bible. You deny the absolute truth of this (or at least, > that they have demonstrated this to be the absolute truth). But you are > *both* wedded to your idea of an absolute truth -- there is one, and it is > important to know whether God is a part of it or not. Since this is one > assumption that I do not make except when it suits me (rememeber your > search for assumptions, Rich) I find the whole thing rather unusual. There is a difference between the absolute truth and words we use to represent the absolute truth. By modeling our words and concepts more closely to reality instead of dogmatic assertion, by being flexible in receiving new hard information and acting on it, we achieve a better picture. By the way, is it an absolute truth that there's not absolute truth, Laura? >> The answer does not only wash, it cleans and brightens and >> softens as well. I'm not seeking a justification or reason for >> the way the universe is, precisely because I don't assume that >> it was designed to be that way. We have no reason to speculate >> on design plans or reasons here. Unless we assume a designer. > Rich, you lose. I can speculate on anything I like without assuming a > designer. Why does my cat have blue eyes? Getting an answer to that > does not necessarily assume a designer -- to understand that one requires > knowledge of genetics. We have wonderful reasons to speculate reasons for why > the universe is a certain way -- this is exactly how one goes about > learning anything. What you are saying is ``unless oen assumes a designer, > one is not likely to get any answer to such questions''. Right. The > answers to such questions are unknowable. There may even *be* no answers > to such a question. Now you have contradicted yourself. Laura, I win. Early in this whole discussion, the difference between how and why was discussed. The genetics you mention is a "how", not a why, as someone else pointed out. A "why" assumes a reason as chosen by a causative will of a designer. Only in the context of a universe assumed to have such a designer does such a question even mean anything. The "why" is not just "unknowable" in the absence of a designer, it's non-existent. All you'll get are "how"s. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr