Stoicism vs. Materialism

[Cypress]

The defining features of the creative power of the universe are its inexhaustibility and its rationality. Stoicism offers the obvious proof for this: Consider only the lawfulness of the cosmos itself --

In Stoic teaching, then, particularly later Stoic teaching, knowledge of this kind of divine influence is one of the preconceptions that a rational being has. In other words, a rational being, recognizing the orderliness and lawfulness of the cosmos, must match that up, without further deliberation, with the notion of some rational agency behind it, recognizing that nothing of this sort occurs accidentally.

Source credit: Daniel Robinson, Cambridge University

We should emphasize that there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as ”cause and effect” or ”purpose.” From the perspective of modern science, events don’t have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ”sustain” a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking.

Source credit: Sean Carroll, Johns Hopkins University

.

 

[BidenPresident]

Nothing about the universe show the necessity of a causal agent.

 

[Cypress]

Nothing about the universe show the necessity of a causal agent.

I don't think we have enough information and knowledge to say whether or not there is some fundamental underlying organizing agency to the cosmos

 

[BidenPresident]

I don't think we have enough information and knowledge to say whether or not there is some fundamental underlying organizing agency to the cosmos

Of course we have it. We know the universe exists. One would have to prove it cannot exist without a causal agent.

 

[Cypress]

Of course we have it. We know the universe exists. One would have to prove it cannot exist without a causal agent.

The Stoics are talking about a rational agency reflected in the organization of the universe. Not just an inanimate physical cause.

 

[BidenPresident]

The Stoics are talking about a rational agency reflected in the organization of the universe. Not just an inanimate physical cause.

Ok, my objection stands.

 

[Cypress]

Ok, my objection stands.

Sean Carroll, representing the materialist view, seems to be saying we don't have to invoke a casual agent, rational or otherwise.

The physical laws exist, and reality conforms to it. Causality is not fundamental to the universe, it is an emergent property of existing laws. It just adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to overlay a casual agency to the existing organization of the universe

At least that's his claim

 

[BidenPresident]

Sean Carroll, representing the materialist view, seems to be saying we don't have to invoke a casual agent, rational or otherwise.

The physical laws exist, and reality conforms to it. Causality is not fundamental to the universe, it is an emergent property of existing laws. It just adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to overlay a casual agency to the existing organization of the universe

At least that's his claim

Standard physicalism. I am not a physicalist.

 

[BidenPresident]

Sean Carroll, representing the materialist view, seems to be saying we don't have to invoke a casual agent, rational or otherwise.

The physical laws exist, and reality conforms to it. Causality is not fundamental to the universe, it is an emergent property of existing laws. It just adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to overlay a casual agency to the existing organization of the universe

At least that's his claim

By the way, I am a huge fan of his podcasts and listen to them regularly. He is a great interviewer and genuinely interested in learning something from his guests.

 

[Cypress]

By the way, I am a huge fan of his podcasts and listen to them regularly. He is a great interviewer and genuinely interested in learning something from his guests.

Yes, I think Sean Carroll is one of the best science educators out there

 

[IBDaMann]

...there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as ”cause and effect..."

Stupid. There is apparently no room for science in this "view.". That makes the discussion nothing but gibberish that is immediately discarded.

You really do like to waste bandwidth.

 

[Cypress]

^^^
Plagiarizer, bad faith poster, scientific illiterate.

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other people have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

 

[IBDaMann]

The defining features of the creative power of the universe ...

The creativity of the universe has been defined? Would you share that definition? Does it involve a numerical value?

...are its inexhaustibility and its rationality.

Inexhaustibility: violation of the 2nd LoT
Rationality: assumption of sentience that will thereafter be "concluded"

Stoicism offers the obvious proof for this:

This becomes a version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy by adding the "obvious" qualifier. Anyone who challenges the supposed "proof" had better be prepared to be called "stupid' because the proof was declared to be "obvious."

knowledge of this kind of divine influence ...

Divine Influence: another assumption that will thereafter be "concluded."

... is one of the preconceptions that a rational being has.

Translation: if you disagree, you aren't a rational being.

In other words, a rational being, recognizing the orderliness and lawfulness of the cosmos ...

False: one cannot somehow "recognize" orderliness that does not exist in an inherently random dust cloud.

...must match that up, without further deliberation, with the notion of some rational agency behind it,

Translation: One must rush to believe as instructed, i.e to perceive random chaos as "orderliness" and to conclude the "divine Influence" and the "rationality" (sentience) that one was instructed to assume. Brilliant! Global Warming and Climate Change work that way as well.

recognizing that nothing of this sort occurs accidentally.

All accidents occur accidentally. Everything in random chaos is "accidental."

 

[Commander Dutch]

Nothing about the universe show the necessity of a causal agent.

Except for the fact it exists whereas over 14B years ago it did not. What happened and why?

 

[Obtenebrator]

Except for the fact it exists whereas over 14B years ago it did not. What happened and why?

How do you know the universe doesn't eternally exist but in a boom-bust cycle of big -bangs and big deflations in eternal cycles. I seem to recall some concept in M-theory that suggests that maybe a "big bang" is nothing more than when two 'branes intersect they create a "big bang".

(Try to not just turn this into more insults please. I'd like a bit of a break if I could get it)

 

[Commander Dutch]

How do you know the universe doesn't eternally exist but in a boom-bust cycle of big -bangs and big deflations in eternal cycles.

It's called "science", Perry. The Oscillating Universe theory has been disproved for decades now. https://www.universetoday.com/37105/fate-of-the-universe/

(Try to not just turn this into more insults please. I'd like a bit of a break if I could get it)

You just did turn this into insults, Perry. Why even mention it except to insult? Answer: You can't help yourself. That's okay, Perry. I know you can't.

 

[Cypress]

It's called "science", Perry. The Oscillating Universe theory has been disproved for decades now. https://www.universetoday.com/37105/fate-of-the-universe/

You just did turn this into insults, Perry. Why even mention it except to insult? Answer: You can't help yourself. That's okay, Perry. I know you can't.

While you were responding, Perry edited his post with some jargon about an obscure hypothesis that comes out of superstring theory and which actually appears to be unrelated to the oscillatory model. This is obviously another case of Perry frantically Googling for tidbits of scientific info to festoon and decorate his post with.

How do you know the universe doesn't eternally exist but in a boom-bust cycle of big -bangs and big deflations in eternal cycles. I seem to recall some concept in M-theory that suggests that maybe a "big bang" is nothing more than when two 'branes intersect they create a "big bang".

(Try to not just turn this into more insults please. I'd like a bit of a break if I could get it)

 

[Commander Dutch]

While you were responding, Perry edited his post with some jargon about an obscure hypothesis that comes out of superstring theory and which actually appears to be unrelated to the oscillatory model. This is obviously another case of Perry frantically Googling for tidbits of scientific info to festoon and decorate his post with.

...all without him understanding what he's posting, no doubt. Sad.

Still, notice his insult. That's typical Perry. He attempts to look intelligent when he's really just a poor little lonely man living a fantasy life online. Sad.

 

[Obtenebrator]

While you were responding, Perry edited his post with some jargon about an obscure hypothesis that comes out of superstring theory and which actually appears to be unrelated to the oscillatory model. This is obviously another case of Perry frantically Googling for tidbits of scientific info to festoon and decorate his post with.

OK, so more insults it is. Thanks. I knew you couldn't be a better person.

Your ethics suck.

 

[Obtenebrator]

It's called "science", Perry. The Oscillating Universe theory has been disproved for decades now. https://www.universetoday.com/37105/fate-of-the-universe/

"highly unlikely" does not mean "disproven". Good googling, though.