Interesting the threads that get the juices flowing...
For some years I have deliberately made an effort not to preclude any philosophical position in any of my posts. Firstly, it makes sense to me to leave them all on the table (that's the most open-minded position, right?). Secondly, and more importantly it's just boring; eventually some wag will retreat to a (pseudo-profound ;) ) unanswerable question like, "Oh yeah? Well why is there something instead of nothing then?" At that point, depending on our bias, we might say well that's just "the nature of things", or that's how the "mind-at-large" arranges things and, despite the associated baggage, we might even invoke "god". None of these answers is satisfactory to everyone, and none of them are particularly revelatory either. As Linda might say, none of them are "useful".
Pragmatically science works, no matter the nature of reality, just ask dean Radin or Rupert Sheldrake. I'd wager that the vast majority of scientists are not expending time and energy agonising over the metaphysical underpinnings of their reality whilst simply trying to get useful results (except, funnily enough, Radin and Sheldrake). "Shut up and calculate"? Sure, but "Keep talking and speculate" hasn't really moved us forward, however fun it might be.
(This post was last modified: 2018-09-26, 03:15 AM by malf.)
For some years I have deliberately made an effort not to preclude any philosophical position in any of my posts. Firstly, it makes sense to me to leave them all on the table (that's the most open-minded position, right?). Secondly, and more importantly it's just boring; eventually some wag will retreat to a (pseudo-profound ;) ) unanswerable question like, "Oh yeah? Well why is there something instead of nothing then?" At that point, depending on our bias, we might say well that's just "the nature of things", or that's how the "mind-at-large" arranges things and, despite the associated baggage, we might even invoke "god". None of these answers is satisfactory to everyone, and none of them are particularly revelatory either. As Linda might say, none of them are "useful".
Pragmatically science works, no matter the nature of reality, just ask dean Radin or Rupert Sheldrake. I'd wager that the vast majority of scientists are not expending time and energy agonising over the metaphysical underpinnings of their reality whilst simply trying to get useful results (except, funnily enough, Radin and Sheldrake). "Shut up and calculate"? Sure, but "Keep talking and speculate" hasn't really moved us forward, however fun it might be.