Berkeley's Immaterialism

Such interaction has a very different meaning when there is no "free will"...the very idea that reality is a construct falls apart. That has been my point in A2K for the past 5 years or so.

The distinction is of such importance that my stance could be coined of neo realism. It does not negate the processes of perception but negates them as meaningful alterations on the phenomenology of the world. The entaglement of observer and observed forms an inescapable reality which is as much part of the world as noumena themselves, just another composite object. A strange kind of rock if you will...there is no contruction, no creativity, no debating...just the unfolding of the world and its NATURAL phenomena. What else is news ?

Reason, not of a free constructing mind, but of mathemathical order, binds the whole package together and thats why it works. Concepts have a NATURAL range or extention. They are not infinite. They work as functions in distinct layers of language, and most importantly, they are not creations but an intrisic natural part of the world. As far as I am concerned perception is a not free form of interaction no different from say, gravity. Distinctions in perception are NATURAL changes of pov, nothing more nothing less.

That's merely word play. I don't think you have enough command of the language used in that text to know what 'word' meant.

The value of Language can't be ignored but in the Venn diagram of language, physics and theology, there is very little overlap. I think you overstate it.

I know quite a bit about 'word magic' which encompasses hypnosis, 'Holy Writ', ritual chanting and prayer). Heidegger, of course took the language to the extreme when he wrote 'language speaks the man'. I must admit I am intrigued by the application of Venn diagrams to physics and theology. Is that where the concept of 'the God particle' comes from, I wonder !

Seriously though, the functionality of words/concepts in science is also context sensitive. Paradigms come and go. It was not that long ago when there were only four elements, and even the word 'atom' had dubious functionality prior to Einstein. Since then of course, even the word 'particle' has come under scrutiny from QM considerations which have made 'locality' problematic in subatomic contexts. And whatever is the case in science must surely be applicable to theology to an even greater extent. It is only by asserting a axiomatic premise of 'an eternal unchanging Truth' aka 'a deity' that you can avoid the obvious.

Applicable even more than most admit.
Science is, more than anything, the search for unchanging fundamental truth.

No ! Science is about shifting functional paradigms which are always subject to refinement and potential rejection. The seminal reference is Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The quest for a T.O.E. is considered to be a wild goose chase by many eminent scientists including Hawking (I seem to remember). Your phrase 'fundamental truth' is merely a version of religious absolutism serving the psychological desire for a 'bedrock' on which to build a 'meaning to existence'. It is the attempted antithesis of Shakespeare's observation about life being 'a tale told by an idiot....etc'. (Macbeth).

Could well be, but the heart, even that of the scientist, wants what it wants.
It remains to be seen whether it is a wild goose chase.

Fresco is a nihilist who wants to fight reason with his special kind of reason and truth with his own truth...Leave him its a lost case. He simply doesn't have the lobes...

...the central core of his philosophy is change, but just think about the nonsense he preaches, his change is about non objects....there is no morphing from A to B. According to his enlightened view there can be change between non things. Must be irrational change. That which is not changes to another that which is not. Somehow he can tell the difference between two non things...

...really its a nuts case. Better leave him to his delusions and march ahead.