Maybe comes first, world travelling comes later...

[GrowingSmaller]

Hows about this:

Propositions may be true, false or maybe. This is know as a "3 valued logic".

The typical example of a maybe would be a proposition about the future. It may be true, it may be false.

Now, lets look at creation and evolution. Each may be true. Neither is a necessary true, or a necessary falsehood. If a truth is contingent, then there is a "possible world" in which it is true. See the concept of Anekāntavāda too.

Proposals are never completely falsified. The "fossil record" may be a dream, a computer simulation, a ghost like appearance based in the trauma of the fall etc. Even the famous atheist Bertrand Russel said you couldn't disprove the idea of Last Thursdayism (ie the universe popped into existence last Thursday...).

So, we have an initial pre-choice phase where creation may be true, and evolution may be true.

Then we add our axioms and assumptions. A scientific example would be that the perceived world is the result of sensory information, and carbon dating is reliable etc.

Only then do theories or propositions become true or false. After we take the initial steps of giving order to the "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" of the phantom like world of disorganized perception.

So now dialetheism. Propositions and their negations both being true.

Creation may be true, and evolution may be true, depending on your rubrics, axioms etc. The truth of falsity of a proposition emerges from the order we give to the "maybe" of the "blooming, buzzing confusion". It is not an independent reality, one discovered in a pure sense, but dependent of social and cultural constructs etc.

So by analogy with the future, where we know the truth of a future proposition only when tomorrow comes, we know the truth of creationist or evolutionist proposition when we define our axioms and rubrics etc.

We don't know the absolute future, and nor do we know the absolute truth about this topic of creation and evolution.

Creation is true for the creationist, and evolution is true for the evolutionist. Each is a constructed "step" they have taken in world travelling, rather than a purely discovered truth independent of will. They each have a "back pack" or "mask" of assumptions, and take a slightly different path along the mountain path of cognition - like a philosophical masquerade or carnival of actors.

If you don't believe me and are a hard core scientist for example, and you believe you are fallible, in what sense could you actually be wrong? I believe we have an infinity of worlds to choose from.

The world we believe we are in - which forms our subjective (and relative not absolute) truth - is voluntary and fideistic (faith based). It is, to some degree, a freely chosen result of faith, plucked from a modal multiverse of possibilities. Atheism and science are not based in a "lack of faith" but are alternative faiths, and faith based worlds, to the regular religious beliefs...

Even a "lack of belief" can be a stepping stone...

 

[lesliedellow]

Creation is true for the creationist, and evolution is true for the evolutionist

Is the world flat for a flat earth-ist, or is it obstinately spherical anyway?

 

[SkyWriting]

Hows about this:

Propositions may be true, false or maybe. This is know as a "3 valued logic".

The typical example of a maybe would be a proposition about the future. It may be true, it may be false.

That's two. So the example fails.

Evolution - life is getting more complex.
Creation - life is experiencing entropy and breaking down
with less usable energy as time progresses.

Science says
What exactly is the heat death of the universe

 

[lesliedellow]

Evolution - life is getting more complex.

Nope.

Evolution - life adapts to suit its environment.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hows about this:

Propositions may be true, false or maybe. This is know as a "3 valued logic".

The typical example of a maybe would be a proposition about the future. It may be true, it may be false.

Now, lets look at creation and evolution. Each may be true. Neither is a necessary true, or a necessary falsehood. If a truth is contingent, then there is a "possible world" in which it is true. See the concept of Anekāntavāda too.

Proposals are never completely falsified. The "fossil record" may be a dream, a computer simulation, a ghost like appearance based in the trauma of the fall etc. Even the famous atheist Bertrand Russel said you couldn't disprove the idea of Last Thursdayism (ie the universe popped into existence last Thursday...).

So, we have an initial pre-choice phase where creation may be true, and evolution may be true.

Then we add our axioms and assumptions. A scientific example would be that the perceived world is the result of sensory information, and carbon dating is reliable etc.

Only then do theories or propositions become true or false. After we take the initial steps of giving order to the "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" of the phantom like world of disorganized perception.

So now dialetheism. Propositions and their negations both being true.

Creation may be true, and evolution may be true, depending on your rubrics, axioms etc. The truth of falsity of a proposition emerges from the order we give to the "maybe" of the "blooming, buzzing confusion". It is not an independent reality, one discovered in a pure sense, but dependent of social and cultural constructs etc.

So by analogy with the future, where we know the truth of a future proposition only when tomorrow comes, we know the truth of creationist or evolutionist proposition when we define our axioms and rubrics etc.

We don't know the absolute future, and nor do we know the absolute truth about this topic of creation and evolution.

Creation is true for the creationist, and evolution is true for the evolutionist. Each is a constructed "step" they have taken in world travelling, rather than a purely discovered truth independent of will. They each have a "back pack" or "mask" of assumptions, and take a slightly different path along the mountain path of cognition - like a philosophical masquerade or carnival of actors.

If you don't believe me and are a hard core scientist for example, and you believe you are fallible, in what sense could you actually be wrong? I believe we have an infinity of worlds to choose from.

The world we believe we are in - which forms our subjective (and relative not absolute) truth - is voluntary and fideistic (faith based). It is, to some degree, a freely chosen result of faith, plucked from a modal multiverse of possibilities. Atheism and science are not based in a "lack of faith" but are alternative faiths, and faith based worlds, to the regular religious beliefs...

Even a "lack of belief" can be a stepping stone...

Creationism and Evolution are both man made systems of belief. Just like facts and knowledge in general they have a half life. There is a lot that will be proven wrong as new information becomes available. Because man made systems of belief do not have the inspiration of God. Only the Bible is inspired by God and He watches over the Bible to maintain it's integrity and it's truthfulness.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/11/qa-samuel-arbesman

 

[Gracchus]

Evolution - life is getting more complex.

No. Evolution is change in the frequency of alleles in a genome over time. It may involve increasing complexity, or it may involve increasing simplicity (as in some parasites), or it may involve neither.

Creation - life is experiencing entropy and breaking down with less usable energy as time progresses.

Actually, most creationists seem to think there is really no such thing as death, because the soul, the consciousness, is eternal. But creationists believe all sorts of things and have actually killed each other over, literally, one iota.

Science says What exactly is the heat death of the universe (sic)

Thermodynamics says that heat, energy, will not flow spontaneously from a colder source to a warmer sink. It will flow the other way, and when there is no spot in the universe warmer or cooler than any other, there can be no flow and that would be the "heat death" of the universe.

Any questions?

 

[SkyWriting]

No. Evolution is change in the frequency of alleles in a genome over time. It may involve increasing complexity, or it may involve increasing simplicity (as in some parasites), or it may involve neither.

I see one direction with no examples,
and one direction with example.

 

[Gracchus]

I see one direction with no examples,
and one direction with example.

Well, sponges are more complex than protist choanocytes, and some barnacles are, in the adult form, little more than nutrient absorbing tissue and gonads.

Do you desire any other clarification?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, sponges are more complex than protist choanocytes, and some barnacles are, in the adult form, little more than nutrient absorbing tissue and gonads.

Do you desire any other clarification?

So this is your example for simplicity?
I see almost an infinite amount of details to
expand on here. I need to create a complex
system just to examine all the layers of
complexity.

So is there some direction there? I see them die and become simpler.
Or their system experiences extinction and it becomes simpler.

 

[SkyWriting]

Nope.

Evolution - life adapts to suit its environment.

Do minerals do that?
If not, why not?
If so, why so?

 

[lesliedellow]

Do minerals do that?
If not, why not?
If so, why so?

Because minerals are not involved in any process which would allow adaptation; not that it is exactly obvious what adaptation to its environment could mean for a chemical compound.

 

[ecco]

The world we believe we are in - which forms our subjective (and relative not absolute) truth - is voluntary and fideistic (faith based). It is, to some degree, a freely chosen result of faith, plucked from a modal multiverse of possibilities. Atheism and science are not based in a "lack of faith" but are alternative faiths, and faith based worlds, to the regular religious beliefs...

Not so much "alternative faiths" as alternative definitions of "faith".

There are two very different definitions for the word "faith":

faith
fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More

2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
​

"Atheism and science are not based in a "lack of faith" but are alternative faiths"


My atheism and belief in science are based on a faith (trust, belief, confidence, conviction) in science, and a lack of faith (trust, belief, confidence, conviction) in (religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine).

​

 

[Gracchus]

So this is your example for simplicity?

No, I was referring to the genus Sacculina.
Sacculina
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sacculina

Sacculina carcini (highlighted) attached to a female Liocarcinus holsatus
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Crustacea
Class: Maxillopoda
Order: Cirripedia
Family: Sacculinidae
Genus: Sacculina
Thompson, 1836
Type species
Sacculina carcini
Thompson, 1836 [1]
Sacculina is a genus of barnacles that is a parasitic castrator of crabs. The adults bear no resemblance to the barnacles that cover ships and piers; they are recognised as barnacles because their larval forms are like other members of the barnacle classCirripedia. Depending on the location, the prevalence of this unusual crustacean parasite in its crab host can be as high as 50%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacculina

It doesn't look like a barnacle at all. But many parasitic species are simpler than their ancestral species.

So is there some direction there?

Not exactly. A one celled organism can become multicellular, which would allow for specialization of cells. Most folks would call that an increase in complexity. It may be the case that parasitic bacteria can evolve to rickettsia, prions or even viruses. That would be evolving toward simplicity.

I see them die and become simpler.

You are now talking of a different type of simplicity.

Or their system experiences extinction and it becomes simpler.

An extinct species is not simpler, it is just gone.

Do you require further clarification?

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you require further clarification?

I see no signs growing complexity.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is the world flat for a flat earth-ist, or is it obstinately spherical anyway?

It is flat if they use a non-euclidian geometry to map it. Otherwise theres an inconsistency between the axioms and the data. Or, they mey be in a flat earth land bed, dreaming of a spherical earth etc.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Creationism and Evolution are both man made systems of belief. Just like facts and knowledge in general they have a half life. There is a lot that will be proven wrong as new information becomes available. Because man made systems of belief do not have the inspiration of God. Only the Bible is inspired by God and He watches over the Bible to maintain it's integrity and it's truthfulness.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/11/qa-samuel-arbesman

Weel fot me thats your take on things. Each one has a relative reality or truth, and the absolute is unknown. Claiming absolute knowledge via the bible, well, thats a way of "comportment" or relating to the absolute in a relative way.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Not so much "alternative faiths" as alternative definitions of "faith".

There are two very different definitions for the word "faith":

faith
fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More

2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
​

"Atheism and science are not based in a "lack of faith" but are alternative faiths"


My atheism and belief in science are based on a faith (trust, belief, confidence, conviction) in science, and a lack of faith (trust, belief, confidence, conviction) in (religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine).

​

But you also have faith in the foundations and axioms of science, logic etc.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am looking into Jain philosophy, and 7 fold predication;

1. syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
2. syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
3. syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
4. syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
5. syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
6. syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
7. syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.

list from wikipedia here.

If we take a creationist and an evolutionist (Paley and Darwin).

1 In some ways creation it valid (Paley)
2 In some ways is not valid (Darwin)
3 In some ways both (Paley and Darwin)
4 (etc etc etc)....

I say valid because demonstrating the actual obbjective truth of certain "myth building" (creationist, evolutionist, matrix like, last thursdayist etc) premises depends on knowing the absolute truth, which we dont have access to.

"Myth: 1830, from French Mythe (1818) and directly from Modern Latin mythus, from Greek mythos "speech, thought, story, myth, anything delivered by word of mouth," of unknown origin." - Online Etymological Dictionary.


So we have what Kierkegaard the existentialist would call "subjective truth", or IIRC a pragmatist would call "a pluralistic universe"....

MAybe i am arguing for factual relativism:

"One school of thought compares scientific knowledge to the mythology of other cultures, arguing that it is merely our society's set of myths based on our society's assumptions." Wikipedia.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is flat if they use a non-euclidian geometry to map it. Otherwise theres an inconsistency between the axioms and the data. Or, they mey be in a flat earth land bed, dreaming of a spherical earth etc.

I have never yet seen a flat-earthers proposing anything except the standard Euclidean metric, and, as we know from Gauss's Theorema egregium, the metric determines curvature.

 

[ecco]

But you also have faith in the foundations and axioms of science, logic etc.

Again, it depends on which of the two definitions of faith you are using:

• "trust, belief, confidence, conviction": Yes
• "religion, church, sect, denomination": No.