Sunday, April 25, 2010
God and Intelligible Design
God and Intelligible Design
FORTHCOMING: A new look at the logic of the traditional proofs in light of the new physics. Note- this is not necessarily the same as asking Does God exist? Would any theist presume he is that Godlike to know what most philosophers and honest scientists believe cannot be known? Would the non-believer fare any better as to what of his own sense of substance and dealing with the infinite as perhaps distant to this question? Or perhaps on all levels where there is emotional and practical wholeness, the cosmology, the teleology, ontology on all levels at any point or points in points of identity being or vanishing in the universe deeper than the hexadecimal steps of the finite thus beyond the improbability of say DNA arising in the sea or as Hoyle in a measure of perfection from the stars? I miss some of the very good students on the philosophychatforum who could map this out formally and give the issue as well as myself a great debate.
The strength of a nation is measured by its Phd's (which nation?) but the scientist in me at least would rather talk about the thesis beyond some title and the pursuit should look a little outside ourselves as much as perhaps these issues as if a legitimacy of prayer as Gardner believes is fundamental, after all.
Gardner looks a lot at the questions of identity in the sci fi literature and in philosophy. The old idea of the pattern of the music and not the lyre and so on.
In the Riverworld the point there was that it was sentient beings that kept the cycle of souls supported and returning to the river. Of course the issue of waves and particles and what after all is that individual consciousness or self - would the pattern of Martin Gardner if reaching a greater stage of awareness of what we are and comfortable with it be He who would want to preserve it as such? Are not all electrons thought possibly one? On any side of a one sided philosophy, chirally speaking and with parity, is it not the same argument as it appears right under the filled negative vacuum on the other side of the hologram? How can we know or assume a deconstruction by a mere change of say gender sign and zero that the philosophy changes absolutely for some social belief? Is it always irrational to work equality and compromise- is it rational to limit our wide enquiries to some one sided assertion of the cheif concern of philosophy as axiology, values where ultimately there may be no such distinction in an intelligible world of people that if we as things stand try to figure society out and how it may change must remain incomplete and thus irrational where we ask at least of identity what is altruism at the initial creation of the self- where a single photon interferes with itself and the design, intellegent, intelligible, or meaningless in some wholeness or perfection our great institutions as long lived as they are compared to other things are intrinsically unstable- the endless copies of faces not seen twice but a thousand times in the mirror at all the universe in sight in our local bend of the endless river?
Interestingly, such a reference to quantum mysticism and Penrose's model of wider universes of entropy and maybe a new direction in this sort of thing as a new foundation for a religious movement- in Gardner's long era he was cautious not to say he was speaking against or for the anthropic principle.
^ ^ ^
L. Edgar Otto I return again to the ongoing burning question- What happens when the music stops? On facebook today- thought and comments
A new song begins to play
Everybody needs to find a chair, and the one left standing is out of the game.
Predators lurk near, storms are on the way, and there is not a bird in the sky.
L. Edgar Otto
Maybe, pop goes the weasels, we surprised when we waken from our sleep like Jack in the Box...
Perhaps a plague or two for the heck of it.
its probably like a jukebox, you need more quarters once the last song ends