Re: Belief - I'd like to share this item with you.

On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
 

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
>

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>

On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>

On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:

On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:

On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a
crank.

>
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
>
TIA
>

Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.

I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious?
>

The focus on Intellligent Design (ID).  This has been kicked
around on this group for many years, and has its proponents.
Obviously, I'm not one of them.  I don't propose to re-argue this
subject.  Check through prior discussions here if you want to get
the flavor of it.  I'm not interested in getting involved in such
a discussion.

>
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up
over and over.

>
>
It has.  My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested.  in it.
>

What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
>

>
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
>
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
>
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is evidence
that life was created rather than evolved.
>
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a political
movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's
goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
>
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single creation
creationists (God created the urorganism) * multiple-creation
creationists (God created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth
creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young earth
hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** old earth
creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous
progressive creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
>
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also consider
Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
>
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the fault
lines in society, rather than focussing on the particularities of
belief (defining creationism as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
>
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and cosmology,
or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic
evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the former has God
guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural processes can
produce the same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that
natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
>
In another context creationism is the position that human souls are
created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other positions.

>
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
>
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep persuing
them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another world,
which is more real than this one, which crops up still in popular
culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by
something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the illusion and
take our rightful place. I think Jung would say that other place is the
unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its own image.
>

Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The whole
Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The
filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s
Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was bullshit.

>
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix is
science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context?

 "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and
Pascual Jordan, it was the first successful theory for quantum
mechanics. It described the properties of atomic and subatomic particles
not as precise values, but as probabilities represented by matrices.
 The Math Behind It: These matrices are essentially grids of
numbers. Each element represents the probability of a particle being in
a specific quantum state, like a certain energy level. Unlike classical
mechanics, where you could pinpoint a particle's position and momentum
exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the probabilities of these
properties.
 Not Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on how these
probabilities changed over time, rather than providing a clear picture
of the particle's trajectory. It described the transitions between
states, not the exact path the particle took.
"
 

Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant sense for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as mathematical, which is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in relating to elements arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to the film, being taken from the film. The remaining senses can be placed in two groups - either a mould (which, giving the etymology, I take to be the older sense) or a substrate, underpinning, background or supporting structure, which I take to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice of title for the film.
--
alias Ernest Major