Ard Louis | Symmetry, Function & Predictability

[klw]

Thanks, I agree and it makes things clearer. Yes, its that aspect of postmodernism that stresses “complete subjectivity” that I find frustrating (if not dangerous), the idea that anything goes and that it is fine in all circumstances to promote “your own truth”.

[klw]

Yes, but in the sharp-tailed grouse slide, note that although the meaning may change depending on the receiver, not every possible “meaning” is assumed to be a valid or “true” one. If a female grouse out looking for a mate saw a fine dancing male and thought “it’s a dangerous hawk predator” and ran away, biologists would say that that female “got the wrong meaning” and indeed behaved maladaptively.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@MarkD

it does mean that convincing those parroting cockamamie, conspiracy theories cannot be accomplished in a straightforward way with assured success.

Heck, even the general consensus of scientific community has had little luck persuading yahoos about best practices in the face of pandemics. Somehow I don’t think those whose personal research into alternative practices represent minutes and minutes of surfing google do so as a result postmodern reflection.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@klw

Trying to think…is there any difference between “meaning” of something and our subjective reaction to it? Is this where moderns and post-moderns would differ? Mark brought up one’s reaction to a snake… if the reaction is not completely instinctive, and if a naive animal has not experienced a snake before it might not “emotionally” react to it, but does the snake still have objective meaning? “dangerous”?

Dangerous is maybe relative and its object needs to be specified, dangerous to what? (Since it now has an object, it becomes objective? ; - )
 

is there any difference between “meaning” of something and our subjective reaction to it?

I think yes. A series of the natural numbers has an intrinsic meaning that is not subjective regardless of of any individual’s reaction to it. (All maths are repulsive to some individuals. ; - ) Maybe think of Venn diagrams? How can they be subjective (unless it’s a Venn diagram about feelings – but even then… )?

[Vanengelen (Erik van Engelen)]

@Dale

think yes. A series of the natural numbers has an intrinsic meaning that is not subjective regardless of of any individual’s reaction to it.

I don’t disagree but why do you think that natural numbers have intrinsic meaning? Or is “meaning” that they refer to the intrinsic structure in our reality? But what is that: “refer to”? Isn’t that given by us or another intelligent being?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Good questions. There would be no meaning unless there was an intelligence (or an Intelligence) to recognize or infer it. In any case, the basic meaning is objective and not subjective, even if there is only one individual or not, and whether or not it is articulated ‘externally’ to that person or Persons.

[St.Roymond]

I’m laughing at myself here because given my mindset as I read the title I was certain this was going to be about liturgy and worship!

.

.

Hmmm – maybe it is.

[St.Roymond]

@Vanengelen

The problem is that we don’t know at what stage the supernatural stops and the natural takes it over. It is a unique situation long ago. Take in comparison the resurrection of Christ. At certain time point in the tombe, His body started to become alive. His blood unclotted, His heart started pumping, all billions of dead cells started to re assemble themselves, neurons started firing. He opened His eyes and came out. I don’t think, it is reasonable to try to explain these processes in natural terms. However, in my opinion, the resurrection of Christ is more easily explained scientifically in natural terms than abiogenesis. His molecules were all already in the right place at the right time in His dead body.

That would be only the beginning of the process, since the end result was a body that could somehow pass through grave cloths and appear in a room with the doors all shut.

[St.Roymond]

@Vanengelen

intitially the only point that I wanted to make with fixed laws is, that even there are strict regularities in our physical world, God is still working. He is not on holiday, while the world is doing it all at its own. He is not less busy with the regularities than if he does some extraordinary.

This reminds me of something one of my philosophy professors said: Creation is always in the present tense,

[heymike3]

@St.Roymond

This reminds me of something one of my philosophy professors said: Creation is always in the present tense,

Uh oh… any chance you are interested in considering the counter claim my philosophy of religion professor made to the cosmological argument while at the same time acknowledging an infinite sequence cannot be formed through successive addition?