Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) philosophical rambling rants

Those who will have the courage to reach the end of the too long text in bad english below will know without any doubs why i have called this thread like that.

My humblest apologies to all those who will fall asleep trying.

Main idea of this text was given to me by some posts in alrik's thread: "Cultural Definition of soul's damage". I could have post it there, but as it is not directly related to spiritual damage i better like open a new thread for it.

Otherwise i would be interested if this text was criticized as it is in a way critical (in the meaning of examining limits), or if some of you would have similar rants about anything.


About Science, philosophy and religion

Imho questions for understanding the relationship between the three are:
1) are these fields handling the same objects?
2) may these fields coexists "peacefully"?
3) are we in a time where a kind of "belief" in one of these fields (actually science) excludes both others?
4) has the relationship which is uniting/differing these fields has changed with history?

I won't try to answer these questions one following the other but just make an attempt (heavy underlined, please) to have a global approach.

-first- what is the common point between these three fields? Imo, that they are exercices. in the general greek meaning of aeskesîs, that it is to say that they are awakening to life, and to life of the ideas. So all three are a part or the whole of what could be called "spiritual life". Therefore, there are all three claiming a very privilegied relationship to Truth.

-paradoxally this relationship to the truth is generally not critically examined, in an inside manner except by the scientists. It is mathematicians who have since the late XIXth Century interrogated and perpetually redefined this relationship to the truth with a critical tool which is essentially a logical tool, its proper name is methamathematics. And in the meantime have redefined what is a physical theory: theory is no more an abstraction of experiments but a kind of "generator/creator of facts" (for some reasons the question to know if the fact is "made" or "rediscovers" is maybe circular, and anyway more a philosophical than a physical question. Classical answer since quantic mechanic is it is "made" and "rediscovers" but i won't really comment that).

-well these two entirely news elements introduced in the scientists view of the science (as it was introduced mainly by scientists and not by philosophers who to be frank have not really understood what was happening, mainly because they lacked the tools for that) have a very important consequence: whatever is with people who believe in science, science itshelf (and largely the scientific community) has ceased to believe in science. It was more efficient for that than the kantish distinction about theoric and practical, especially because Kant had practically understood nothing to newton's mechanic and knew very few about science in general in his lifetime.

-why these elements are proving science that science can't be explaining all
1) because a theory can't be exportable (what is true in an universe is not true in another).
2) because a theory can't be generalisable beyond a certain level of generalisation (the universe is not indefinitly expandable). Solving a problem in modern sciences is always creating new problems. There is not a scientist in this world who have not experimented that.
3) because the number of theories needed to solve all problem that science can solve (i don't even speak about all problems that science can't solve) "is equal" to the mathematical undefined infinite. What is a serious problem for explaining.

These results are definitive. If there is still (for other reasons) a place for an aximotic in science it is a very limited axiomatic. As it is, axioms for modern biology have not the same meaning that axioms for the modern mathematics and it would be more an more like that. No, i'm not Nostradamus, there a re some very rationnal reasons for predicting that. And biology's axioms are not explaining what live is. Just how living is.

As a matter of fact science is the only field to have posed its own limits. By essence religion is very reticent to do so. And philosophers haver never really interrogated their relationship to the truth whatever they said. Even Nietzsche... Well Nietzsche was but in the same way he was bringing back with an hand what he was erasing with the other. There is probably no philosophers who have more claimed to be the ultimate incarnation of truth than Nietzsche.

These differences of approach may tend to show that the objects of these three fields, as they are constituated by these fields are truly different, and so probably not concurent. It may be more easy and convincing to explain a difference of approach induced by the objects, than by a very abstract difference of method.

There are many other points to speak about in this aspect, but right now i'm beginning to tire myshelf so i will stop for now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Okay, this is my "try of an answer". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

The sad thing is, that I have things in my memory which I once have written - but cannot anymore explain them precisely. That's why some of my comments will always remain somewhat unclear.

Okay, here I go :

- I've once read in an scientific magazine ( I think it was the "New Scientist") around the turn of the millennium that - according to a information science theory - it has been observed that "Mother Nature" - I mean the Universe it self, seriously - gives only as much information free as it must give - because tests, and theories are "discovering" them.

What sounds quite weird meansin the result that we aren't really "discovering" scientific facts, but rather that the Universe is giving them away ... because it must do so, because - let me try to put it into a picture - the Universe has been threatened by scientists to give this "information" (scientific facts) away.

The article I read in the library of the University of Cologne back then was so interesting, that I got really excited ! Because it sounded as if there was a mathematical theory of some "information science" that was actually expressing or even proving (although I doubt that there can be real prov for that) that the Universe actually acts like that. We get only bits of information because we are begging for them, or because we are threatening or pushing the Universe (like it was some godly person) by showing "scientific facts", acting like "this is what we have found; now you must admit that we are right and give this information to us !" - that was the picture that I had in my mind when I read this text.

I lost track of this article, it's been a long time ago already, so I cannot say whether I#ve mixed things in my head or whether I've understood it correctly at all.

But your texts also points to that :



That is - in a nutshell - exactly what I've tried to say above. We don't really"discover. It's already ther, and "discovery" is an illusion - Mother Nature (the Universe) only gives it to us, because we've "found" it. If we hadn't "found" it, it wouldn't be "true".

- Besides, there are *very* few Scientists who are ral Philosophers ... where does this hiatus come from ? Because Sciences are divided into "Natural Sciences" and the other Sciences, we call in German "Geisteswissenshaften" (a possible translation would be "Sciences of the Spirit/Mind"). (Geisteswissenschaften are here in Germany for example Literature, Languages, Philosophy, Archaeology, etc. , interestingly Geography is here also counted to that, in stark contrast to Geology).

As a result, there is no real "Ganzheitlichkeit" ("Wholeness") of all sciences. You could either be a Chemist or an Archaeologist, but not both at the same time - that's how it goes as a principle. Geography is one of the few sciences that are "Whole", including parts of "natural science" and "mind science" at the same time.

Considering this Hiatus, I'm not surprised that Philosophy lacks the tools and mind-concepts / theories that are developed in extreme physics (quantum physics, for example).


- The most interesting and comprehensive set of theories I've come across is something very special. You won't believe it.



There even is a set of theories that describes what's in exactly this quotation : It's the set of underlying concepts of Huna.

According to Huna, the belief-system of a person creates what this person experiences. Sounds weird, huh ?

Well, it's even worse <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> : This does not only mean that the belief-system creates what the person experiences from a personal point of view, but also from an objective point of view. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

I mean the folowing : If I believe that "everyone hates me", not only will I experience it that way from my subjective point of view, but also - according to that principle - people will begin to act towards you in that way. If I believe " I have no good uck", things will happen to actually "prove" that belief (please not that I've put "prove" into quotation marks). If I believ "I'm successful", thingswill just turn out that way.

Put into science that means that if I put somthing into a theory, it is so. If I formulate a theory about quantum physics, my belief-system will incluence the "truth" in a way so that things seem to "prove" my theory.

I've heard of several esoterical "systems" where people actully believe that thoughts can influence things. Like I've described above. I'm not really surprised.



That fits very well on what I've said above. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Back to topic :



1. No. Well, yes, but not in the same categories.
2. In the "western" cultures, I'd say "no".
3. As in 2. "Western" cultures are often very materialistic, logical, rational oriented, and therefore Science excludes Religion and Philosophy, except in extreme cases (quantum physics, for example, where the borders tend to disappear).
4. In "western" culture I'd clearly say "yes", beginning with the time I know as the "Renaissance" at the end of the "Middle Ages". At that time, people tried to explain everything using Logic and the Ratio and material sciences. This has let to a vast overall improvement, but also created a Hiatus between the above mentiones three fields. One of the very few examples is Geography, and in the field of Archaeology people now tend to try to fit at least two of the fields together again. Modern excavations are normally performed by Geographics and Scientists and Arcaeologists at the same time ( Natural Sciences and "Geisteswissenschaften").

That's why I was interested in the topic about "spiritual damage" if there are still cultures in the world which don't have this hiatus (division) between Religion, Philosophy and Science. I don't know any, but have the feeling (from what I've heard) that the division between these three might be smaller in aian cultures.

[color:"pink"] ... but have the feeling (from what I've heard) that the division between these three might be smaller in aian cultures. [/color] Alrik

Al, do u mean asian? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> if so, do u mean something like geomancy & Tao? well of course it's somehow deeply rooted in religion but somehow it's a science as well. i don't study deeply about these so i can't tell u more. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

[color:"pink"] According to Huna, the belief-system of a person creates what this person experiences. Sounds weird, huh ? [/color] Alrik

nope. mind over matter. i recall reading Frank Herbert's Dune series & he seriously thought that perception/belief can alter reality, therefore by adjusting your perception/belief, u are adjusting your reality.

as for MG's comments, let me sleep over it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

alrik i understand why we can't understand each other if you consider that quantum physics is an extreme case. For me it is more the model of what science is, and even of what science was before. Why? because with their own tools and methods other scientific fields have integrated some part of theoretic revolution that were at works in quantum physics, and especially in quanta mechanics. And i don't really know what is an extreme case of theory in science. if quantum theory is, mathematical game's theory or fractal theory are also also, chaos theory is, and why newtonian mechanics shouldn't be? As it is quantum mechanics is much more general than newtonian mechanics, so why should it be an extreme case?


For XXth Century: Lord Bertand Russel, Wittgenstein, Kuhn, many others a bit less known and probably more or an equal number that philosophers who weren't Scientists. if by real Philosophers you mean Metaphysician (but why? why should be philosophy reduced to Metaphysics?), i would say Wittgenstein (in a way) and Hintikka. Anyway there are many philosophers, Scientists or not who have tried to reconciliate metaphysics with formal logics (logics as the formal logos of science). Even if there have very few to do the one with the other, i will say Hans Georg Gaddamer and Haako Hinttika, especially.

more or less true. There are many physicians who are mathematicians too though. And yet concepts in physics and mathematics are clearly not the same. To begin with Infinity as mathematicians have an unlimited undenumbrable infinite which is very strange for physicians. (And to say the truth for philosophers). Hm... Archaelogia is not a science, Alrik. But anyway it is true that sciences are a bit too specialized for anyone having a good global view of it.

Are you sure you are not confounding science and têknè? If there is a hiatus it's more probably between science and technics than between philosophy and science. Not the same thing.




hmm... what is making a theory true is that:
1) scientific community accepts it.
2) it is coherent with the ensemble of anterior theories.

for the status this truth may "ontologically" have, i don't know. It is not what is the most important in science, as it is not really depending on science.



But it was always like that. In Ancient times, people were explaining phenomen with astrology because they thought astrology was a science.

What do you call logic, alrik?

Logic depends on what is logical to you. I have the belief that logic is not something that is "true as a stone" and cannot be altered - instad, I believe that there are many different logic systems.

My favourite example is the Logic of a highly depressive person. What is indeed logical for that person is not logical for other persons - especially those who don't suffer Depression.

By the way, I called quantum physics "extreme" because of the matter (or not matter) it deals with. For the public it's not easy to understand what String Theories and sub-atom particles are, what Quarks are and why they react the way they do and so on.

true enough. But once again it is also true for most of modern scientific and especially physics and mathematical theories, since the late XIXth. As a matter of fact the last scientific theory which was "relativly" simple to understand was the Ensemble's theory, because the "first results" are quite intuitive.
so science is extrem...? Maybe <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />



but that's exactly what science says, or at least Logic(s) as a "mathematical" discipline says.

MASTER_GUROTH >

I understand your words as do a few others here, but why don’t you create as simplified model so that others here can grasp a mental visual as to what you mean.

You are speaking as a scientist to non-scientists.
Some people's eyes here are starting to glaze over.
Keep the meat, but simplify the explanation. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

I hope I made sense.
I like this topic.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> MG, you state archeology is not a science - then define science, please
Science = natural sciences (only?)
Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry is science - archeology is not? What else is not? Medicine, biology, history, geology,...???

About Science, philosophy and religion

I'll try to evolve some (personal) thoughts from your starting questions.

[color:"orange"]1) are these fields handling the same objects?[/color]
Why objects, not subjects?
Objects in the meaning of material objects, or objects in the meaning of objectives (goals, targets)
These were the first questions that came to my (twisted <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />) mind.

<lights his pipe to ignite the thinking process>

Common to all three is the attempt to explain the world around us.
Science takes the factual approach. It continously expands the limits, but there are limits beyond which science cannot find facts and explain (yet, as stated earlier).
Religion explains what cannot be proven or disproven. Let's disregard the fact that institutional religion tries to defend its dogmas. Eventually it will concede facts, and adapt to whatever cannot be ignored anymore. (Religion as general term, not necessarily some humans <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" />). It seems that it lies in human nature to try and find an explanation for anything.
Philosophy tries to reconcile the two others by "constructing a bridge" between what is factually known and what is believed to be true, by trying to find reasons for the latter.

[color:"orange"]2) may these fields coexists "peacefully"?[/color]
Of course they may - the question is, can they <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
It would be nice, if the spontaneous answer could be YES!
However human nature is also argumentative in defending beliefs, scientific pride, attitudes and prone to utter anything as absolute truth - irrespective of field.

[color:"orange"]3) are we in a time where a kind of "belief" in one of these fields (actually science) excludes both others?[/color]
< - that's worth another pipe...>
There is one field science does not touch, which the other two do - ethics.
(Mind you, I am not saying that there are not, or should not be, ethical values in scientific research - just that those values are not scientific per se)
Up to the limits of our cognition "belief" has no room in science - it may in the scientist though, but that's a personal, individual view. In the contrary factual science should have room in religion and in philosophy, and be a similar basis for adaption, as new facts have in science.

[color:"orange"]4) has the relationship which is uniting/differing these fields changed with history[/color]
Oh yes! Greatest outward sign is the position of scientist, plilosopher and religious rerpresentavie in society during various times and cultures. Just think, that in ancient Greece a greater part of society could read and write than in the early middle ages (in Europe). In the latter period religious representatives controlled what general public knew! As in ancient Greece the Gods were much closer to nature (and the knowledge of nature still being more "superficial", within grasp of general understanding), and less mythical and mystified, scientists and philosophers (very close at the times) had much less problems with religion. From 15th/16th century onward religion's influence was on the decline and science's was rising - philosophers always being in the middle, constantly evolving and adapting their theories, concepts and ethics, but never having the same institutional influence in society as either of the others.

{It's been a long time since I made a two pipe post - bear with me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />}

Mea mutters to herself " Good gods, I am far too stupid to follow any of this stuff .... why am I reading it then ?" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"]...why am I reading it then ?[/color]
Want us to pihilosophically argue on the question? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, this is not really fitting here, but one of the things I never underrstood was the division between logic and emotion.

Emotion is often seen - as far as Ive experienced it - as a hindrance to logic - to logical explanations of the world around us. A scientist must NOT rely on his emotions or even introduce them into his process of scientific research. Empotion is frowned upon, sometimes even considered something inferior to logic. Logic is for men, emotion is for women, cynical formulated.

Yesterday or the day before I thought : Everything is made up to comply with logic. The way the sciences describe are based upon logic.

So now - I thought - how would it be vice versa ? A world in which every way of research is based upon emotion ? A kind of "emotional logic", being a sort of the opposite of how logic is currently used in the scientifiic reseach process ?

I'm not speaking of emotion as a mere feeling - I mean emotion as a way of seeing and evaluating things. You can have "a very bad feeling about this" meanwhile at the same time your logical apparatus sees no sign of danger at all !

Personally, I see Intuition as a kind of emotion, too. It's the most effective form of emotion I know of, a real good tool once you've managed to work with it.

Intuition could tell a person "to have a bad feeling about this" , whereas logical research might not find any sign - because it actually misses something !

I personally believe that both emotion and logic work with two distinct ways of "researching" things - both not compatible to one another (at least as far as I can see this).

But still, emotion is considered inferior by scientists, not just different as it really is - like two colours, or just black and white.

So, what no-one had ever tried to do is actually building a scientific reseach system based on emotion. Because we all know how logic works and how to apply it, but don't knowhow emotion can be applied to work in the same way : For reseach.

Even worse : Mathematicans have developed means to describe logic - but no-one has done that with emotion !

We know that there are different logic systems, mathematically outlined, ways to explain logic, "what is logic at all ? how can we use it", but no-one has tried that with emotion. There simply doesn't exist any way of describing emotion at all - in a similar wa that logic is described - because no-one had ever the intention to do so. And that's because no-one considered emotion to be good enough for that, or for any kind of "use" at all.

la logique m'échappe - excuse my french <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"]I see Intuition as a kind of emotion[/color]
Instinctively, I have a dissenting opinion - or should I say intuitively? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Intuition, in my understanding, is like pieces of a puzzle spontaneously forming a picture in your mind. The pieces are all there, just the connections weren't made yet. They click together when a key element is triggered, without you being aware of the process or you actively evolving it - at best you can retrace it afterwards.

But that makes it neither emotional nor illogical.

Alrik i think there is a problem with the use of this logic word.

I use it in the scientifical meaning "metamathematical" one like something that is applyable for defining science or more exactly mathematics, and i will say mathematics (or at least) science only. And you use it in the "popular" meaning. So we are just not speaking about the same thing. Scientifically speaking logic is multiple and not the kind of monster that you would try to describe, as the one who would want to impose a unified idea of truth. I don't think that mathematical logic has any use outside the sphere of science nor is a way to see the world in general. I's quite specific.

ok i will post later about that, and the very intersting posts by Glance. err too busy just right now... and yep... i have to make some efforts to be more understandable, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" /> you're right Tsel

strictly speaking: intuition has nothing to do with emotion... just a manner to see a phenomen as "given to us".

I love science, but my knowledge and skill in the sciences is a micro spec compared to others here.
My knowledge holds more to the side of phenomenon, that is why I say Emotion is very important and should be one of the tools used in the furtherance of scientific research.
I tend to only write in bullet statements that is what I know best.
I am sorry for the simplicity of my comment.
If we totally take out Emotion as a tool used in scientific research then where would be our humanity if it was required?
Sometimes something done for all of the right reasons can be totally wrong and Emotion is One of many tools that acts to protect those wrongs. For without Emotion there would be no real conscience of what would be good and what would be bad.
Think of it.
You know there must have been many scientists throughout time that did not reveal their discoveries because their Gut/Intuition and Emotion screamed at them that this is not the right time for this; their discovery.
Without Emotion we as a people might do things to others in the name of science.
Some may say this is poppy cock! That would never happen!
For those who think that are you the scientists that would scare me; you who would do those things unthinkable in the name of science.
I am not against the progress of science.
I believe Emotion should always be a tool used in the progression of science.

Science is a good thing.
Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Could well be.

I assume that Emotion is sinmply an "alien" form of logic itself, but it cannot be described in the way you mean it, because no-one has ever developed a way to do so.

At school, we learn that 1+1=2 , but we are supposed to have Emotion instantly - well, we have, but no-one teaches us/the peoople how to actually "use" it. How to "read" it like a book.

I might be wrong, though.



From my personal point of view thi is completely wrong. I see Intuition not as a "Phenomen", but rather as a higly efficient "tool" which few people have learned to use, because it is not taught anywhere.

And to me, it's also highly connected to emotion. For example "a bad feeling about this" can be Emotion ("feeling"), but also the Intuition that tells us something.

Maybe I use it in a different sense than you do. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

And it is. I don't want to be sexually offensive... But theories make often the same effects than a beautiful woman/ handsome man on the scientifics. And at least "great scientists" have a relationship with them (or some of them) that may be comparable to f*cking. My words are a bit vulgar but "true" enough i think. And that plays even important part in science "progress" (even if i hate this word of "progress". As a matter of fact i don't believe science progesses, it is just continued). But even then science is not an entirely rationnal and cold field. It is a very living thing with its love and hate. It was what i mean saying that science was an exercice... of life. Not the only one, but one among others. But poetry and arts, even "magic" are not absent from science. It is very difficult to explain why in simple words though.





As always Glance you are asking a very good question, but one i would have better liked not seen there, because i can't define science <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />

I suspect the main reason is that in a way but in a way only, is science all what is claiming to be science, and there are things too different for being really unified by thought. (well it is not true only for science).

So i will answer with a classification more than a definition. This classification (made by logicians, so scientific) has become quite classical in philosophy of science.

-Model of What a science is: mathematics. Why? because it is the field which use the simpler concept (simple in the meaning of "not composite"). in a nut shell, so oversimplified.
-rules for passing to other sciences: that they are "mathematizable" or "axiomatisable".

Concretly:
highest level of science below mathematics: physics. Why? because physics is entirely (or near entirely mathematisable) but its objects are far more composite.
highest level below: biology (and probably Chemistry but there i must confess i am very ignorant <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />). biology is partially mathematisable and would probably be entirely mathematisable one day, but its objects are far mor complex because they are much more composite than physical objects and they are dealing with life (science does not know what is life).
following highest level: "Applied Sciences": Geology, "science of electricity", "computer science" etc... They are probably more craft or technics than science. They use scientific tools and mathematisable models but their objects lack of a certain abstraction degree.
lower level: Medicin. Idem than "Applied Science". But it is dealing with life.
lowest levels: sociology, psychology, history, ethnology, archaeology, philosophy etc... They are not mathematizable. I mean their principles are not mathematizable, even if they use sometimes mathematical models. Archaeology is a bit special as it may use other scientific (like chemists or biologists), but it is using them not being them. In my mind they are more knowledges than sciences. Which does'nt mean they are not "true" of course.

When i speak about science here (in other threads it was quite different but reasons were others), i speak about the 2-3 highest levels in science: mathematics, physics (and biology). Why? because it is very difficult to attempt to know how science works with the lowest levels which are more far from the model.

because they are objects. Topics but objective topics. Constituated objects, but objects. Subject here is Science.

I will try to propose a more direct and if possible simpler answer's attempt for the questions i asked as a starting point than was i have already tried... but later.

Thanks MG - your classification is good enough for me to see your point. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I thought I should read this thread later... But I don't ever think I will <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" />.

Übereil

Tsel