[MD] Through a glass darkly

[Ham Priday]

Greetzz, Adrie --

(I take it "Greetzz" is a Flemish salutation, too.)

[Adrie re: his query on Ant[h]ropocentrism]:


> The reason i'v been asking for this is a possible upcoming conflict
> in your theory, as Anthropocentrism is the opposite twinbrother of
> 'Theocentrism', and using them intertwined like Mark-,and you ,
> sometimes by implied formulations.
[snip]
> (Diffracting the creator's entity, by shredding it into the cluster of
> the human race, is still placing (imho) the creator on top of the pyramid;
> and in such Anthropocentrism seems to conflict Theocentrism.)
>
> This is only a remark, not a critic, better not to breastfeed it into an
> upcoming problem.

I have no desire to create a conflict ...heaven knows we already have more 
of them than I can address.
And the "pyramid" paradigm doesn't appeal to me as a cosmological model.  I 
am not qualified to critique the astro-physicists' view of the universe. 
What intrigued me about Hawking's statement is that he seems to be using the 
"weak anthropic principle ...that we must observe a universe whose 
properties are consistent with
our existence" to support his own "probability" theory of creation.  In 
striving to explain "fine-tuned" reality as a cause-and-effect process, 
physicists typically resort to "multi-universes" and/or probability theory 
to avoid the fundamental issue of a Creator or primary source.

> Mark is correct: technically spoken we are (Earth, our universe,
> our milky way) about exactly at the centrepoint of the observable
> universum.
>
> All observations, the red-shift,the age of the universum, the background
> radiation, the models,theory of relativity, etc are supportive to the idea
> as well the observations that the Hubble volume is expanding around our
> milky way, but moving away from it in all directions very rapidly, the
> empty space between the galaxy's is expanding.

Frankly, Adrie, I'm tired of dealing with specious details concerning 
physical phenomena and their evolutionary dynamics.  Let's face it: this is 
not an issue that objective science can resolve.  It won't be solved by 
coming up with more sub-atomic particles or new wave theories that can be 
set into a mathematical equation.  The solution to this perennial problem 
will only be found in a properly formulated metaphysical model.  And, even 
then, there will be no way to objectively confirm the theory.

> I'm not offering things of Hawking or Pirsig to make them conflict with 
> your
> work.  If i read it closely, and follow all possible implications, the 
> least i can
> say is that a number of good patterns is shining thrue in you work.
> You are a lot lesser conflicting these paths than you declare yourself.
>
> Try this one, model dependent realism.
>
> You Ham, are trying to develop a model dependent realism of your own,
> your theory's here displayed, 'essence',' essentialism', etc, if Hawking 
> and
> Pirsig are allowed the valid and valuable approach of model dependent 
> realism,
> i can see no reason as to why you should not develop your own model.
>
> Your model is not the top of the pyramid trying to overrule the MOQ, but
> to be seen as an entity(for now) that locates and poses itself still at 
> the
> intellectual level (a projected individual treshold antropho/theocentrism
> induced)
>
> Be carefull with the implications, a reactive devaluation-based system 
> will
> fail the test of common sense.

I appreciate the caviat, Adrie, and I realize that my hypothesis is often 
regarded as "uncommon" sense.  Indeed, if common sense could provide the 
solution to our enigma, we would have had it by now.  Forgive me for 
injecting what may appear to be a "theistic" thought here, but it is my 
suspicion that we were "not meant to know" the truth about reality.  I say 
this because to know the Truth is to surrender our Freedom as the 
"existential agent" of reality.  That freedom has more value for mankind 
than all the factual knowledge Science is capable of offering us.

> Personally i'll think Hawking is more of an apatheist then he is an 
> atheist.
> I see no need to subscribe to his apo/thei conflict approach for you, but
> your work and approach can take the benefits of his insights on model
> dependent realism.
[snip]
> Is it a good thing if i reverse your sentence toward 
> religion/theism/creationism?
> Can you prove their existence objectively?....and reframe it in the 
> sentence's
> context? (no need to answer it)

Unlike scientific theories, metaphysical hypotheses cannot be made subject 
to "fallibility testing", and I would be foolish to claim empirical proof 
for my ontology.   What is an "apatheist", by the way?  (The word isn't 
listed in my English dictionary.)   Call me a "model-dependent idealist" if 
you like; I suppose it's as good as any label that can be applied to a 
metaphysicist.

Unfortunately, the truth about Reality is that it's no more "common" than it 
is "fair".  So if you want to hold a philosophical discourse with me, I'm 
afraid you'll have to deal with the uncommon sense of my conclusions.
Thanks for your insights, Adrie.  Despite my ignorance of the Belgian 
language, I do appreciate the sharpness of your intellect.

Essentially speaking,
Ham