[MD] Metaphysics

[markhsmit]

Marsha,
The general theory of reality can be science if you want it to be.
Regards,
Mark

On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:17:29 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
From:   MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Metaphysics
Date:   January 16, 2010 1:17:29 PM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

corrected... 


Krimel,

I think I remember that Einstein used Riemannian geometry in the general theory of relativity. 
Is the general theory of relativy science? 


Marsha 


On Jan 16, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Krimel wrote:

> [Mark]
> I think the concept of intelligent design depends on the definition
> of intelligence. We have been through this before so I won't 
> belabor it, but doesn't the trial and errors and learning that
> occurs in evolution represent a form of intelligence? Semantically
> at least?
> 
> [Krimel]
> When atmospheric conditions produce a hurricane, is that a form of
> intelligence? After all how does each new storm know which way to spin and
> where to put its eye? Is it "like" intelligence? In some ways, yes, but to
> identify it "as" intelligence ignores the myriad of ways it is nothing at
> all like intelligence. For example, there is no agency, purpose, intention
> or reflection involved; all of which seem to me at least to have some
> barring on intelligence.
> 
> [Mark]
> Thermodynamics is a self-contained system in physics which defines all terms
> with reference to each other. There is no possible way for it to be wrong.
> If I set up a system of definitions, it cannot be wrong because I make the
> definitions. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> Here I think you are highlighting the difference between inductive and
> deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with its definitions and
> proceeds to make sense from there. For the most part this is the kind of
> closed system the Gödel claims must contain elements that cannot be proven
> within the system.
> 
> Deductive reasoning is our gift from the Greeks. Inductive reasoning, which
> is the foundation of scientific thought, doesn't work that way. When we use
> it, we are seeking to build our definitions from our observations. In a
> sense the system we are trying to build is entiring composed of elements
> brought into the system from outside.
> 
> This method demands that when those outside elements fit, we assimilate
> them. When they don't fit we must adjust the way we account for them, we
> accommodate to them.
> 
> [Mark]
> This is similar to the notions that math cannot be wrong. Of course it
> can't. If I say The sun is hot, because heat comes from the sun, that can't
> be wrong either.
> 
> [Krimel]
> The notions of math can't be wrong if you accept the assumptions that the
> mathematician specifies at the outset. However, as a mathematician you are
> free to offer other premises, like Lobachevsky and Riemann. But again I
> would see this as a problem for the deductive method that does not
> necessarily apply to the inductive method.
> 
> Saying "the sun is hot" seems to me, at least, to be derived from
> experience. It is what Kant would call synthetic truth. The math examples
> reveal analytic truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/


_______________________________________________________________________

Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 







Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/