Murray Gell-Mann on truth and beauty in physics

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Murray Gell-Mann on truth and beauty in physics

Post by QuantumTroll » Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:48 pm

Metacrock wrote:
Ok, but usually it's not considered part of the same framework as, say, physics or neurobiology, but I put it in that context. This is high praise coming from me ;)
Yes, but see the reason for that is those studies are not truly empirical in the original sense of the word. They are inductive but not empirical in Cartesian sense. In other words they reify reality according to statistical frameworks rather than allowing the data to dictate. Thus they are actually "metaphysics" in Heidegger's sense.
Whatever they are, I firmly believe scientific studies are a good way to understand the universe and live in it, and I'll follow this principle until its absurd conclusion at a later date ;) . Personally, I think that reifying reality according to mathematical frameworks IS allowing the data to dictate. That's why science and mathematics are so fascinating. The big picture they paint is very compelling, if a little rough around the edges.

I actually think you're right about science being metaphysics, in the sense that metaphysics is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world, but I do not know what Heidegger thought.
Any empirical approach involves categorizing data and putting it in a contextual or theoretical framework.
No. Only the inductive kind. The original term meant "I experince this first hand, I've seen it myself" from the Greek Episteme meaning first hand knowledge.
Whenever I learn a new fact, open my eyes, or hear a sound, sense data goes into my brain and integrates with this big picture of the world that I have in my head. I thought this happens for everyone.

That big picture is a framework, and adding sense data to it constitutes (I guess) inductive empiricism. Isn't it?
Data can only speak for itself when it is linked together with the rest of the cosmos.
No you are trying to say it can only speak when we tell it what to say. That's not true.
That is not what I am trying to say at all. If we told the data what to say, we would never learn anything new, yet we clearly do.

It speaks for itself when you let the phenomena suggest the categories.

Yes, data requires interpretation, but interpretation depends upon the categories you allow the data to fall into. If you select the categories in advance you only get the answers you want. If you allow the phenomena to suggest the categories then you see more possibilities.


The difference in data and phenomena is that data is already refined. Data is phenomena that has been sifted and refined and polished into "data," information that tells us what we want to hear. But Phenomena includes qualia and all kinds of things. So its' data in its raw state. You allow the categories to be suggest by the raw state of experience then you obviously more open to greater possibilities.
Which categories and possibilities do the phenomena suggest, which are ignored by my concept of God and phenomenology? And don't forget that the categories I use are also suggested by a set of phenomena, namely the natural world outside. Why is this invalid?

One of my God arguments, one that I have not used on boards since I first began on message boards (because it's too subtle for most people) is Gabriel Marcel's personal argument for the existence of God. Marcel argued that he found God in the human consciousness, he saw God in other people's personal natures. That's a first person perspective.

Marcel was the leading Christian existentialist of the 20th century.
Cool, I am looking him up. Your description of his argument sounds consistent with the beliefs I'm forming. We shall see if that's superficial or not :)
I have been slowly coming a new position beyond God arguments. I'm now trying to formulate a way of stating my position. We don't need God arguments. It's not a matter of proving, it's a matter of developing consciousness.
Neato. "Developing consciousness" sounds like a worthwhile endeavor in its own right, actually. However, I'm about to cultivate a period non-consciousness. (this would be a good place for a sleepy smiley, but awkward and tiny text in parentheses will have to suffice)

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Murray Gell-Mann on truth and beauty in physics

Post by Metacrock » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:12 pm

QuantumTroll wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
Ok, but usually it's not considered part of the same framework as, say, physics or neurobiology, but I put it in that context. This is high praise coming from me ;)
Yes, but see the reason for that is those studies are not truly empirical in the original sense of the word. They are inductive but not empirical in Cartesian sense. In other words they reify reality according to statistical frameworks rather than allowing the data to dictate. Thus they are actually "metaphysics" in Heidegger's sense.

Whatever they are, I firmly believe scientific studies are a good way to understand the universe and live in it, and I'll follow this principle until its absurd conclusion at a later date ;) . Personally, I think that reifying reality according to mathematical frameworks IS allowing the data to dictate. That's why science and mathematics are so fascinating. The big picture they paint is very compelling, if a little rough around the edges.
nothing about science that contradicts or disproves religion. science and religion do not compete.
I actually think you're right about science being metaphysics, in the sense that metaphysics is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world, but I do not know what Heidegger thought.

that ultimate nature things is a wrong understanding of metaphysics. Metaphysics is actually the herding of sense data into pre conceived categories as I speak of about. The alternative to metaphysics is phenomenology.


Any empirical approach involves categorizing data and putting it in a contextual or theoretical framework.
No. Only the inductive kind. The original term meant "I experince this first hand, I've seen it myself" from the Greek Episteme meaning first hand knowledge.
Whenever I learn a new fact, open my eyes, or hear a sound, sense data goes into my brain and integrates with this big picture of the world that I have in my head. I thought this happens for everyone.

sure it does. that's a simple level of sense. but we don't just see and hear things that's the truth. We file them. Our brains are actually structured to do this for us. The sense that somethings are real and some not real is actually a hard wired structure in the brain. The naive idea that "what you see is reality" is just nonsense. This is what Newberg brings out as the result of neurological research over the last several years. Our perceptions are structured by our brians and they don't necessarily reflect a "what you see is what you get" kind of world. they reflect constructs and we file things away into pre preconceived categories.
That big picture is a framework, and adding sense data to it constitutes (I guess) inductive empiricism. Isn't it?

No, induction means statistics. in this case it does. It means averages and probabilities. But things fall between the cracks.

for example the average sense is that most women cant' beat up most men. But then there are women who kick my ass. simplistic example.
Data can only speak for itself when it is linked together with the rest of the cosmos.
No you are trying to say it can only speak when we tell it what to say. That's not true.
That is not what I am trying to say at all. If we told the data what to say, we would never learn anything new, yet we clearly do.

well obviously its not absolute. But there is a sense in which we do that. For example what the guys on carm did with Lourdes miracles is a perfect example. The evidence said there are over 4000 cases that be explained. but the CArM atheist said "there no such thing as that which can't be explained becasue they cannot possibly be miracles, so there is an explanation it just hasn't been thought of yet.

that is merely tucking away an anomaly into a pre conceived category. Then they do the circular bit "there's no evidence for miracles. all those claims of miracle cant' be true because miracles don't happen, therefore there is no evidence and proves we are right because miracles don't happen.

It speaks for itself when you let the phenomena suggest the categories.

Yes, data requires interpretation, but interpretation depends upon the categories you allow the data to fall into. If you select the categories in advance you only get the answers you want. If you allow the phenomena to suggest the categories then you see more possibilities.

The difference in data and phenomena is that data is already refined. Data is phenomena that has been sifted and refined and polished into "data," information that tells us what we want to hear. But Phenomena includes qualia and all kinds of things. So its' data in its raw state. You allow the categories to be suggest by the raw state of experience then you obviously more open to greater possibilities.
Which categories and possibilities do the phenomena suggest, which are ignored by my concept of God and phenomenology? And don't forget that the categories I use are also suggested by a set of phenomena, namely the natural world outside. Why is this invalid?
ignored by phenomenology? Phenomenology is not ignoring, it's letting the phenomena suggest the categories. Which one's? I would have to think about that.

One of my God arguments, one that I have not used on boards since I first began on message boards (because it's too subtle for most people) is Gabriel Marcel's personal argument for the existence of God. Marcel argued that he found God in the human consciousness, he saw God in other people's personal natures. That's a first person perspective.

Marcel was the leading Christian existentialist of the 20th century.
Cool, I am looking him up. Your description of his argument sounds consistent with the beliefs I'm forming. We shall see if that's superficial or not :)

that sounds great man. I don't' find your view point bad. I find it interesting. btw there is a whole book of Marcel's on line. I don't think its the one where he makes that argument. but Ill find it for you and link it.
I have been slowly coming a new position beyond God arguments. I'm now trying to formulate a way of stating my position. We don't need God arguments. It's not a matter of proving, it's a matter of developing consciousness.
Neato. "Developing consciousness" sounds like a worthwhile endeavor in its own right, actually. However, I'm about to cultivate a period non-consciousness. (this would be a good place for a sleepy smiley, but awkward and tiny text in parentheses will have to suffice) [/quote]


ahahahaha, good one. :D
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: Murray Gell-Mann on truth and beauty in physics

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:27 pm

I have been slowly coming a new position beyond God arguments. I'm now trying to formulate a way of stating my position. We don't need God arguments. It's not a matter of proving, it's a matter of developing consciousness.
I'm really looking forward to reading that, when you're done with it, Metacrock-- or if you want to bounce some of your thoughts off as as you're formulating them, I'd love to hear them!

I agree that it's not about proving. No one that I've ever heard of, ever came to God by being argued into it! Openness to belief seems to be more about attitude.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Murray Gell-Mann on truth and beauty in physics

Post by Metacrock » Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:40 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:
I have been slowly coming a new position beyond God arguments. I'm now trying to formulate a way of stating my position. We don't need God arguments. It's not a matter of proving, it's a matter of developing consciousness.
I'm really looking forward to reading that, when you're done with it, Metacrock-- or if you want to bounce some of your thoughts off as as you're formulating them, I'd love to hear them!

I agree that it's not about proving. No one that I've ever heard of, ever came to God by being argued into it! Openness to belief seems to be more about attitude.

Thanks Kristen. I wil put up an exploratory thread here and QT and AM and anyone else is invited to take part.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply