Yeah, and, for that, we do not have to invoke God as an explanation.
That’s not necessarily true. According the general theory which is a good explanatory for this still, to observers outside the black hole an indestructible clock approaching the event horizon will eventually slow down and then appear to stop. It reaches infinity. This is called time dilution. Outside observers will always see the clock persist: time and the material clock itself.
Now from the perspective of the indestructible clock, according to general relatively, time will continue. Everything would appear normal as no law of physics stops an object from passing through the event horizon as the event horizon is not a barrier. If they were people, they wouldn’t even know they passed through the event horizon, except if they tried to go back, they couldn’t and that’s what they would know. So no. Time doesn’t stop. It persists from one perspective, and from the other perspective (close to the event horizon and passing through it) time is normal.
I. Ryan,
Yes but that theory is incomplete because it doesn’t explain the expansion and contraction fully. Though they do describe an expansion and contradiction. This has lead into some theories that try to fill in the gap, such as other dimensal universes that collide with this universe which makes it expand which thereby those other dimensional universes somehow ‘bang’ (for lack of better word) into each other stimulating each other into movement. Other theories such as string theory uses about 12 or 13 other dimensions (can’t remember the number off-hand) doesn’t call these other dimensions “other universes” but calls them strings. These are competing theories amongst others. Of course none of these are even theoretically fully ironed out. I’m not saying God is somehow proved but what is to be kept in mind is that non-God materialistic versions are not proved either. And if the latter was eventually proved then it is concievable to say that God will be proved simultaneously.
I am offering skepticism, not a solution to be proved or disproved.
How?
People always invoke God as a hypostatization, which is, I think, what you are saying:
[quote=“From “Human Action” by Ludwig von Mises”]
The proof of the fact that only two avenues of approach are available for human research, causality or teleology, is provided by the problems raised in reference to the serviceableness of instincts. There are types of behavior which on the one hand cannot be thoroughly interpreted with the causal methods of the natural sciences, but on the other hand cannot be considered as purposeful human action. In order to grasp such behavior we are forced to resort to a makeshift. We assign to it the character of a quasi-action; we speak of serviceable instincts.
We observe two things: first the inherent tendency of a living organism to respond to a stimulus according to a regular pattern, and second the favorable effects of this kind of behavior for the strengthening or preservation of the organism’s vital forces. If we were in a position to interpret such behavior as the outcome of purposeful aiming at certain ends, we would call it action and deal with it according to the teleological methods of praxeology. But as we found no trace of a conscious mind behind this behavior, we suppose that an unknown factor–we call it instinct–was instrumental. We say that the instinct directs quasi-purposeful animal behavior and unconscious but nonetheless serviceable responses of human muscles and nerves. Yet, the mere fact that we hypostatize the unexplained element of this behavior as a force and call it instinct does not enlarge our knowledge. We must never forget that this word instinct is nothing but a landmark to indicate a point beyond which we are unable, up to the present at least, to carry our scientific scrutiny.
[/quote]
I. Ryan,
Ok, so you’re offering skeptism. Good for you.
As to How? I say: ‘How not?’
Fair enough. (I asked because I thought that you were being more specific than that.)
I. Ryan,
Oh. No, I wasn’t being more specific than that.
Another peaceful discussion. Thanks.
This post is an example of something “being ontologized”. It wasn’t and now is. Ontology includes becoming due to potency-actuality. A thought is potential and then it becomes and therefore THIS thought is actual. Societies become. Human growth development becomes and age is a record of such a becoming. Evolution is becoming. Nature becomes/changes all the time. And I already gave facts and theories of Astronomy that show change and in the universe, ie. cosmic microwave radiation, etc… Aristotle gives a better argument on potency-actuality than I can at this time. This is one major difference between Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle was an immanent realist and Plato was a transcendental realist. Science is of immanent realism. I don’t know who argues for Plato’s forms anymore.
“It is sufficient for our purposes to distinguish between two variants.
Transcendent realism or Platonic realism is the view that universals exist
separately, that there is an independent realm of universals ante rem (‘before the
thing’). This realm is independent both of our concept of it (this is the realist
component) and of particular things (this is the transcendent component). A
transcendent realist could not say that economic universals ‘exist in part only in
our ideas’. Thus, Menger is not a Platonist.
Immanent realism denies that universals could exist separately. Instead,
universals exist in rebus (‘in the thing’); that is, only as instantiated in particular
objects. No uninstantiated universals can have real existence. There are
universals (this is the realist component), but they exist only as aspects of
particular things (this is the immanent component). Universals do not therefore
inhabit an independent realm of their own, they rather reside in particulars.
This is the traditional Aristotelean view.” - Uskali Maki
You cannot derive an ethical system merely from the concept of ‘god.’ There are many problems with this. First of all, it is utterly presumptious to assume that this god is “good.” Secondly, it is even more presumptions to assume that his actions serve as a guideline for your own. Revelation is imperative for ethical knowledge.
I’m a Van Tillian in some respects, but my theology much more closely resembles Gordon Clark’s.
Firstly would you care to critique Long’s argument for the necessity of agent neutral morality I laid out earlier. Now given that this is sound to be cogent needs an absolute reference point: the timeless creator of the my cosmological argument.
Now since we have objective morality it follows that God’s nature and actions serve as a guideline of our own actions. Jesus anyone?
Finally you take it as a matter of pure belief that God can’t reveal his nature through creation- natural revelation viz. natural law. If I create anything, a car, a novel or a cheesecake it always has halmarks of the creator- anything that is created by an actor communicates, reveals.
On a related point, and this is an honest question, is your rejection of natural law based on the Hume is ought dichotomy or that by endorsing you reduce the power and authority of special revelation in the scriptures?
“A thought is potential and then it becomes and therefore THIS thought is actual. Societies become. Human growth development becomes and age is a record of such a becoming. Evolution is becoming. Nature becomes/changes all the time.”
But the ontology of becoming is categorical. The examples you cite are all part of the same basic thing. Physical stuff changes from what it was before. Mass stays the same. Mass does not become. Only concepts like “it is raining” “become”, and I think we can agree that if an agent sees a difference between rain and no rain, its a psychological phenomenon he’s been hard-wired to distinguish.
If nothing changes (becomes) then why did you write this?
edit: The static equilibrium model doesn’t work and blinds the practitioner. The market is dynamic and involves an entrepreneur, and a good theory would account for that process.
Because I don’t think change = becomes.
From your last post I would say that you do have moral principals, even if you don’t think you do.
I beg to differ, but let’s see what you’ve got.
You clearly recognize that there are facts about the world which affect your quality of life
Relative to my particular conceptions of desirability, yes. Yet even if most or all people had such conceptions, there is nothing logically inconsistent with departing from these conceptions.
Politeness, Honesty, and such things clearly serve you. I think ethics would the the logic (or art whatever) of finding those virtues.
Virtue, in its original sense (or Virtù to avoid confusion) is simply the aspects of character which are gainful within a certain complex of related aims. It would be nonsensical to deny that Virtù exists, unless one believed that all action was futile. That being so, Virtù has no moral content (though within the internal logic of a morality there can be Virtù). Virtù is completely divorced from the question of whether one ought to possess certain related values, it is (more or less) a description of buttresses to the achievement of hypothetical imperatives.
I don’t understand why amoralists, in particular stirnerites, dismiss descriptive ethics so quickly. (Ought from an If). I find that people would be a lot better off if they thought about those issues.
Because there is nothing one ought to want. And if one ceased to hold certain values, categorical imperatives relating to that value become meaningless. To cleave to them would be sheer folly.
Perhaps is because most stirnerites don’t believe in metaphysics… Not sure.
If by ‘metaphysics’ you mean the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of reality, I’m not sure one could coherently disbelieve in metaphysics. If by metaphysics you mean Hegelian or existential nonsense about ‘true characters’ or ‘spirit of the world’, then one would have to be daft to believe in metaphysics.
In the former case, I see reality as composed of nothing but bare materials; logic is simply the simplest requirements on existence (a thing can not be the case and not the case in the same way at the same time).
I already critiqued it. It makes normative assumptions. Which is fine, but you shouldn’t argue that your ethical system is derived from positive descriptions alone.
Nope. It does not follow. First of all, God’s actions don’t serve as a guideline for our actions: God is free to take people’s lives, we are not. Secondly, the claim that God’s actions ought to serve as a guideline for our actions is itself a normative assumption, which isn’t compatible with natural law theory.
Sure, your actions reveal your nature to some extent, but this nature does not have normative implications for the observer. You cheesecake doesn’t tell me how I ought to live my life; God’s “cheesecake” doesn’t tell me anything more.
I reject natural law because it is incompatible with scripture, and because it is fallacious. Do you find natural law appealing because it doesn’t require an appeal to verbal revelation?
What is his position on meta-ethics?
It doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what I think, as it was what I meant. Unless of course you’re only having this discussion with yourself, then by all means.
That’s a major problem with some people. Instead of going by what something, somebody or a whole host of some people actually mean in regards to a particular thoery, some people inject their own meanings into subjects thereby never intellectually grasp what some people, a theory, or subject actually means. It’s the exact same thing as going into a biology class and disregarding all the terms and definitions that the professor and textbook are using, applying ones own meanings to the words, and then on top of it all when an F grade was given the person is bewildered and doesn’t understand why the professor gave them an F. At that point, if they are still wondering why I don’t know if I should laugh or quietly shake my head as I walk away.
But, this is ironic because it is you who adopted the convention of changes=becomes. I’m perfectly happy if you choose to use language this way, as it doesn’t harm my understanding of the things you write.
Anyway I looked back an I’ve been maintaining that ontological creation is bunk. I started using “become” as a synonym for “creation” for some reason. I like synonyms. I did this without realizing that you had previously been using change/become interchangeably.
Back on topic.Lets retry this:
I didn’t say nothing changes or becomes. I said that change/becoming depends on the psychological distinctions humans make between different configurations of the universe. My point is that nothing is created in the sense that creationists use the word. I can create a sand castle at the beach no problem because I have stuff to make it out of. The sand can change/become a castle.
But then creationists turn around and use our empirical notions of creation to say that mass and time can be created too. By this they no longer mean transformed, and indeed, they can’t, because no matter how mass is transformed it is still mass (or light, technically, but its the same basic stuff). By create, they mean come into objective ontological existence.
We have never seen this. We can never conceptualize it. Its a form of creation without change. Nothing becomes the universe. Nothing changes into laws of thermodynamics. And somehow these things are said to be created. This is what I do not buy.