Substantial material facts are considered to be the universe for-itself. One might of course stipulate the word 'material' as an intermediate term, yet that would be wrong.
One can say that 'knowledge' or 'science' is generally about the heterodox interpretation of sense data in increasingly rational parameters of mechanics perhaps.
The idea of what the Universe is like for-itself is of present interest. Not only is there an anthropic principal regarding the parametrical values that physicist find about the bound variables that allow life to exist in this universe, and its improbability, there is perhaps something else that i will call the 'anthropic principle of perception' that is maybe a synthetic update of Kant's concept of categorical limits of human perception and accurate interpretaion of sense data because of the nature of the cognitive faculties in the human condition.
The anthropic principle of perception would be that the Universe is perhaps mass/energy or whatever it's called by people, and yet it's scale and shape or particular attributes are what cognition makes it seem to be...such as planets and galaxies. For itself the Universe may be quite something else. All those spatial dimentions may be united in a hyper-time that isn't relativistic, the superposition of quantum particles from all possible worldlines may simply be an illusory perceptable phenomenality by humans in'the'universe through scientific theory because they fit the 'holographic' nature of the Universe fully. There may be no space for-itself or time, and the nature of things such as gravity may be developments of long human sense experience that seem very meaningful yet aren't primary or essential fundamental building blocks of the Universe or pluralverse.
In a sense science must rely on mathematical metaphysics in order to try to understand the true nature of the universe through theories that can fit observations better and better, yet they do have that absolute limitation of being surpassabel by 'greater' or meta physics.
The anthropic perception principle means that the window of space-time that people experience in may be limited or filtered to such an extent that absolute empirical knowledge of the Universe or pluralverse isn't practical, and that it's grounding in God, and the kingdom of God being within ultimately, is a matter of faith.
Recently astronomers observed probable galaxies with many old stars from inflaton plus 800 million years upsetting the entire context of missing dark matter and energy in the Universe. Much shaky ground and facinating possibilities exist out there. The 'Dark Era' of the Universe before star and galaxy formation wasn't, in theory, so many hundreds of million years before.
Davies discussed the realty or non-reality debate about math in some detail...some believe math exists a priori in a Platonic sense, other's that they are entirely unreal, abstract systems that ultimately have no 'real' existence. The problem arise how math can cross the 'gulf of solipsim', as well as the principle of anthropic perception' to apply in a meaningful way and relate or transplate abstract relations of nature to human minds and subjective existential criterion.
It is a paradox that Platonic 'realism' is the most ideal of all philosophical systems, in which even numbers and math systems have an existence in a realm of forms of some surrealist, metaphysical character.
Actual physical force fields, and the accuracy and inaccuracy of math modeling of them seems of a philosophically dubious nature.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~fitelson/140A/realism.pdf#search='platonic%20realism%20of%20math'
Intelligent Design is a valid existential proposition to explain the existence of the Universe. Some of course give the phrase a bound meaning in order to specificly refute that as a straw man argument as-it-were.
One should not confuse cosmological theories with intelligent design as a valid existential option.The Universe, whatever it is, does seem to exist, and human experience does happen, and the question of if that experience and phenomenality is in the most absolute sense a consequence of an intelligent designer is always a valid consideration even if one a priori rejects it.
I have actually written a small book on this subject named 'Creation and Cosmos; The Literal Values of Genesis' in which I compiled many of these ideas about intelligent design and cosmology.
One might read Paul Davies book 'The Mind of God' published in 1989 and get some of the mathematical-physicist's point of view on the high ground of an intelligent designer and the modern cosmological theories. Dr. Davies won a Templeton Prize.
It is good not to get to mired down in incomplete and straw men arguement criteria on the issue of intelligent design versus whatever...evolution in some cases. Many of the arguments simply are invalid or don't hold water, are not relevant or determinative.
I gave Peter's value that a day to God is as a thousand years, for example, and calculated the creation of Adam on that basis, and got about 2.4 billion years past. Evolutionary Archeo-Biologists place the rise of Eukaryotic life right about then...coincidence?
There was a mathematician named Cantor that developed the concept of absolute sets, and he concluded that it is not possible for an absolute set of all sets to include itself within that set with validity. That limitation is applicable to any cosmological theory too one would think, and the empirically unprovable nature of God that some people claim is a reason for disbelief is not of a fundamentally different character. That is, an ultimate or absolutely valid cosmology cannot be proven either because it will always be subject to a meta-physics.
God is non-contingent being and not subject to the space-time matter of His creation. One will need to accept that on faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment