|
Hi Luis,
***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).***
Well, Paul gave me flack about the term 'self-evident' for my choices of axioms, so I wanted to cover myself this time...
***"Common origin of seemingly different phenomena... is the reason we call them... unified." (Alex) Right. Notice Alex imposes no "why" on his assertion.***
This principle discussion came up when I asked Alex why he doesn't accept one all-encompassing unification principle to ulimately explain all that existed, is existing, and will exist. His counterpoint is that scientific principles are a subset of some mathematical order, but I challenged this by saying that many principles of science are not directly related to mathematics. He decided to focus on unification, but I still say that unification is a principle that isn't locked into mathematics. Rather, mathematicians use the principle of unification as scientists use it. The question of 'why' is not a concern that I wanted to challenge him with.
***'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.***
I looked at my post and the word 'why' was not in my text (I did a text search just in case). Did you really mean to reply to Yasir's post?
***As you know, I'm a big anthropic principle guy, and so I tend to agree with ALex on this one. Mark your calendars.***
It's one thing to agree with, it's another matter to respond to. I wish we could all get past the WAP (weak anthropic principle) because as the term 'weak' alludes, it is not an effective response to the coincidences seen in the laws of physics. As a result, we need to discuss which view of the strong anthropic principle is favorable. If we do that, my view is that theism comes away with the win.
Warm regards, Harv |
