Laws are always "natural", but they are not "laws" in the sense of rules enjoined by a Grand Legislator; they are merely regularities we observe in 'Nature."
Legislator and Creator are unnecessary metaphors.
When we see a house, we may reasonably aske "Who made it?" But cannot do the same with a tree or with the wood used to build the house.
This chapter was copied from 23.Flashes of Sad Nursi's book.
Truth is the most expedient of available errors.
Kev. I do not think (1) that anything is outside of the "sphere of contingency" and (2) why do we think that this world must be explained in terms of another world?
I think my error is more expedient than the one expressed in your "chapter."
Truth and fact are not always related.
If there is a other world.. there is a selection for human.. If I saw someone who gets into fire I want to prevent him. It ıs so serıous matter. If it is true there is a eternel life.. In paradise or in hell. So I feel responsible for myself and each other.
neologist wrote,
Quote:laws of natural science which have existed long before having been discovered
This is where meaning becomes problematic.
Not only may "laws" not exist without observers but also we might ask whether "time" as in "before" can be deemed to exist. Significantly "entropy" by which we determine "the direction of time" also seems dependent on the observer to define "disorder". So whether Prigogine has discovered "a law" in the traditional sense or whether this points a more radical shift in epistemological position (paradigm) is open to debate.
The implications for the word "truth" are perhaps illustrated by Bateson who takes up the radical view that "words" are merely "co-ordinators of action". This could be taken to imply that "truth" is simply about "what happens next"....it is a "cognitive time out" within an normally continuous action sequence.
neologist wrote:Why not just say that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems and leave it at that?
The second law of thermodynamics applies to open systems too.
Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.
As per "spontaneously" & "tends' it will indeed be the case for an open system also.
If you do not believe me, fly out into space with a hot cup of coffee, it will still cool in this open system.
Chumly.
I have enough trouble driving down the road with my coffee in the cup holder !
JLNobody wrote:Laws are always "natural", but they are not "laws" in the sense of rules enjoined by a Grand Legislator; they are merely regularities we observe in 'Nature."
Legislator and Creator are unnecessary metaphors.
When we see a house, we may reasonably aske "Who made it?" But cannot do the same with a tree or with the wood used to build the house.
A watch implies a watch maker, but a pulsar does not say Casio!
I threw in a pun for fun
That was very punny. :wink:
JLN,
Do you concur with "truth" as a cognitive "time out" ? I am trying to capture the point that most of the time we do not go about our daily business questioning "truth". It is only in philosophy seminars that the "truth" such as "whether Peter has a pain" is analysed. In real life all that matters is what we do next with Peter, and a range of contextual matters will operate beyond the single sentence "proposition" beloved of philosophers.
Yeah, let's all live and let live.
Fresco, I agree, "truth" is what we normally pursue when we confront a "problem." If there's no "problem" in the practical sense, there's no problem in the theoretical sense--unless, as you note--we are in a philosophical context.
I would like to respond to your specific question--"Do you concur with "truth" as a cognitive "time out"?-- with the Nietzschean observation (from Heraclitus) that reality is flux; it contains only processes rather than static "beings." Nevertheless, in order to think about the world, we take a "cognitive time out." This is seen most starkly in the use of logic, which is accomplished by freezing processes into beings, i.e., As, Bs, Cs, and numbers--all the forms by which we treat "variables" as if they were "constants"), i.e., the abstract calculable elements of logical analysis. This is all very useful, but it rests on the construction of static fictions.
The mystic, especially when meditating (meaning not involved with others or practical problems) sees only the reality of process, a reality about which he cannot think because in order to do that he would have to freeze it into discreet abstract constants and, thus, violate its ontological nature--which is fundamentallly contrary to the task of "religious" mysticism.
JLNobody wrote:That was very punny. :wink:
Did you get that a pulsar is also a star, which can act as a timepiece, but of course is natural?
hephzibah wrote:Ok, I have a question for anyone who would care to answer.
Good one. I mean
Quote:What do you see when you look in the mirror?
A reflection. Nothing more. A projected image. Somehow necessary in the oblique conception of 'existence,' methinks.
That, somehow seems truthful. Far removed from reality, as well... Then again...
Quote:Meaning what kind of person are you?
All kinds. Depending. You know. Doesn't matter, I don't think. As long as I'm looking back when I look. That's where the 'truth' part comes in, of course it is of a totally personal nature...
Quote:How do you view yourself?
Well, I don't anymore. View myself, that is. I do look in the mirror, though. If you know what I mean.
hephzibah wrote: Dok said that he looks in the mirror and sees the face of God. If you looked at him in person, do you think that is what you would see?
Yes. Definitely. I'm not being facetious, either. I'm being truthful.
J_B wrote:Why are we here and how did we get here?
Regardless of the answer, is the answer (even if unknown, argued, or otherwise inconclusive) not something that actually qualifies as a certain objective truth that we, as humans, all share?
Or, rather, I should say: can we agree that it is common to all? And that our diverse and respective personal beliefs can not and will not change this particular detail.
Also--doesn't it qualify as a 'truth' since none of us know this 'truth?'
