|
|
#41
11-28-2005, 07:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: On Hume and order in nature
Using the observed uniformity in nature to create models of aspects of the universe, and then using those models to aid decision-making is fine.
The problem comes when you start claiming the these models are not just models of some aspects of the universe based on observed uniformity that we can use in decision making, but further are a true and accurate statement on how the universe really is. I am saying that it appears clear to me that this is not true and never will be. That this is not just a statement on how cleaver we are but is a logical limitation imposed by our fundamentally finite nature, and hence the fine nature of any models we create. I have not studied Hume’s position, however I think we mainly agree, maybe with a different etherises Order needs to be assumed for us to reason sensibly about the universe, which does not suggest that the universe is ordered just that we need to assume it is to reason sensibly about it. The point of contention is probably my claim that depending on exactly how you define order, it is likely the universe is fundamentally not ordered, despite the necessity for us to assume it is in order to operate within it. Ignoring inbuilt limits like the lifetime of the universe, if you keep dropping your pencil enough times, eventually it will not to fall to the ground. 
|
|
#42
11-28-2005, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On Hume and order in nature
[ QUOTE ]
The point of contention is probably my claim that depending on exactly how you define order, it is likely the universe is fundamentally not ordered, despite the necessity for us to assume it is in order to operate within it. [/ QUOTE ] Your point is a semantic one. That's why you and I disagree. Furthermore, I think we *can*, to an extent, say that "this is the way the universe is". We know that mass attracts mass. We call it gravity. The precise reasons this happens we may not know, but we know that it *does* happen.
|
|
#43
11-29-2005, 03:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On Hume and order in nature
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] An axiom IS an unprovable assumption [/ QUOTE ] Finally. Thank you. You too, Philo. [/ QUOTE ] No problem. An axiom is a presuppostion. Which is an assumption. One that just is "self-evidently true". "I exist" is an axiom. "God exists" is a presupposition. To me, it's a lot more self-evident that I exist, than that God does. Arguing on this basis is philosophical flatulence. And it stinks.
|
|
#44
11-29-2005, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On Hume and order in nature
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] An axiom IS an unprovable assumption [/ QUOTE ] Finally. Thank you. You too, Philo. [/ QUOTE ] No problem. An axiom is a presuppostion. Which is an assumption. One that just is "self-evidently true". "I exist" is an axiom. "God exists" is a presupposition. To me, it's a lot more self-evident that I exist, than that God does. Arguing on this basis is philosophical flatulence. And it stinks. [/ QUOTE ] Are there any other self-evident truths other than "I exist?" Cogito ergo sum seems to be the only thing that I could see as self-evident.
|
|
#45
11-29-2005, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On Hume and order in nature
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] An axiom IS an unprovable assumption [/ QUOTE ] Finally. Thank you. You too, Philo. [/ QUOTE ] No problem. An axiom is a presuppostion. Which is an assumption. One that just is "self-evidently true". "I exist" is an axiom. "God exists" is a presupposition. To me, it's a lot more self-evident that I exist, than that God does. Arguing on this basis is philosophical flatulence. And it stinks. [/ QUOTE ] Are there any other self-evident truths other than "I exist?" Cogito ergo sum seems to be the only thing that I could see as self-evident. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps "the universe exists"? Whether these are really "self-evident" is always up for debate I suppose. However, they just have to be assumed/presupposed in order to get much further.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
