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

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:59:02 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:39:25 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
 

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

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

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.

 
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11, so
such a sense must have existed before 1999.
 

I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via Schopenhauer is a
better metaphor for illusion that predates Gnosticism. Life of Pi renders
such things in a manner far superior to The Matrix though the initial point
of the sinking ship is inspired by the divine contraction of Isaac Luria’s
Jewish mysticism.
 
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
 
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.

 
 
Life of Pi provided two stories.  Are both better than The Matrix?
 

Yes and at least one is believable though quite traumatic.
>
As for the other story floating islands are a thing though maybe not
carnivorous islands stocked with meerkats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_island

Although neither story can be proved or disproved, and neither explain
the shipwreck, the book concludes "the other story" is the better
because its fantastic elements model faith in God.  I argue the
fantastic elements make it more similar to The Matrix, and for that
reason both make great stories but terrible explanations.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge