~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Harv,

I agree with a great deal of your thoughts on this, but I see an inconsistency at the basis of your views. Maybe it's just that you worded your post awkwardly, that you do not espouse evolutionary theory, or that I am wrong. Probably it is due to your different approach to the dangerous & loaded question 'why?':

>>>"A principle is an axiom that we think is either self-evident or has sufficient reason to believe based on our experience with nature."

In my opinion this is an accurate definition, but a redundant one (the considerations you make in these discussions aren't exactly what one might call 'superficial,' and so the fact that you contrasted "self-evident" with "based on experience" tells a lot about your stance).

Consistent with evolutionary theory, intuition is based in experience. Hence, at the heart of your & Alex's disagreement might be how you define intuition.

>>>"Common origin of seemingly different phenomena... is the reason we call them... unified." (Alex)

Right. Notice Alex imposes no "why" on his assertion.

'Why' is simply the way we connect the dots, and cause-effect relationships are nothing more than connections (something Doctor Dick spent twenty years "proving"). BUT, when you ask 'why' and get an answer, you might tend to perceive that answer as an affirmation of God. This is faulty logic.

When we impose a string of "why"'s on what we observe (much like a 4-year-old child might), we ultimately require that (1) the universe itself purposely put us here, or that (2) maybe we're not capable of connecting those final two dots. To assume that (1) is the case, IMO, is delusional.

As you know, I'm a big anthropic principle guy, and so I tend to agree with ALex on this one. Mark your calendars.

-LH

• But, it is a useful one - harvey1 - January 19, 2002 - 20:35 UTC
  • Let's name a principle - luis_hamburgh - January 20, 2002 - 15:22 UTC
    • Thanks for that reference - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 19:55 UTC
      • Correction - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 19:56 UTC
        • Origin of universal order. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 20:54 UTC
          • A good paper that discusses this issue - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 22:00 UTC
          • Left=right, sure, and up=down, okay, but what=us? - luis_hamburgh - January 21, 2002 - 17:33 UTC
            • Luis, you are a little too selfish. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 17:52 UTC
              • Alex, again you are making my point. Slow down & read it again. - luis_hamburgh - January 28, 2002 - 01:21 UTC
            • psychology of math - yanniru - January 22, 2002 - 15:10 UTC
              • Rain check. - luis_hamburgh - January 28, 2002 - 01:25 UTC
                • Thanks(nt) - yanniru - January 28, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
      • Condensed soup - luis_hamburgh - January 21, 2002 - 17:23 UTC
        • re: Our condensed differences - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 18:11 UTC
          • if we do not know a thing, it is better to define it - yanniru - January 22, 2002 - 15:24 UTC
            • re: black holes - harvey1 - January 22, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
              • Celestine Prophecy - yanniru - January 23, 2002 - 15:30 UTC
                • Synchronicity - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 16:16 UTC
                  • A good example of circularity - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 00:34 UTC
                    • That doesn't make any sense to me - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 01:32 UTC
                      • I do not understand - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 14:42 UTC
                        • You can never reach infinity via a finite process - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:29 UTC
                          • Give me a week - yanniru - January 26, 2002 - 14:32 UTC
                          • By the way, does evolution of BH multiverse produce - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 01:24 UTC
                            • Still an open question in string theory - yanniru - January 27, 2002 - 18:49 UTC