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

On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:

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

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.

 A matrix can be three dimentional, so there is no reason why the matrix
in The Matrix cannot be 9 or 10. (I don't know why 10 says two
dimentional array, if it is computing that restriction isn't there. But
then arguably even a two dimentional matrix is a a one dimentional array
divided up, and anyway the concept of dimensions doesn't literally
apply.).
 What was it in the film you decided defined it as sense 11?
 

I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that inspired the choice of the title for the film.
--
alias Ernest Major