Skip to comments.'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution & intelligent design
Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Well and truly said, dear 'pipe!
Then I'm sorry I left him off my list!!! But in his own time, Archimedes would have been classified as a philosopher. Actually the words "science" and "scientist" did not enter into common usage until rather late in the nineteenth century. Prior to that, what we now call scientists were called "natural philosophers."
So the ultimate expression of maturity is socialism?
No... Socialism is Slavery by Government created by the social disease of democracy(Mob Rule)..
A primitive tribal scructure for dysfunctional smart asses..
No ... Socialism is giving up your wealth and means of producing wealth to the masses.
Sort of like the folks in Acts?
True that didn't last long though.. Socialism is Satanic..
Yes, Satan is in Acts, people in those days were not prepared for socialism..
Many still to this day are confused and "tricked"..
Capitalism creates wealth, Socialism uses it up..
I just said that..
Me... Capitalism creates wealth, Socialism uses it up..
Now, you confess that most kids read and write poorly (and do math badly as well); a point that departs from your earlier remarks. The point being . . . what? That they really dont need to read and write better than poorly (although one might wish they would do better in math)?
The astonishment just doesnt end. In your latest epistle you also confess that you stuck in the dehumanizing humanities bit just to be provocative. Word-manipulation, you call it, which you describe, including your own manipulations, as a fairly low level of human thought. Yeah, I think youre right; spin is about as low as you can get, at least in terms of human communication. Dr Goebbels was its most ardent practitioner, although he has many equally ardent rivals today. Spin might sometimes actually require a fairly high level of thought, but only to produce the same very low product. Then, you recant and again describe the humanities as dehumanizing. More spin? It looks like I wasnt very far off when I questioned your sincerity. Outside the natural sciences and math, you apparently can conceive of no communication above spin, including your own.
May we take you at your word and assume everything you have to say is essentially spin?
I don't know what it is about these evolution things that cause people to go all nonlinear and start making snide insinuations about one's bona fides as a normal patriotic American.
I dont know what it is about these discussions with science-types that they seem to think its always exclusively about them and evolution. Maybe its because they can conceive of nothing else that could possibly be of some degree of importance. Do you have a context? Might it have anything to do with a statement something like, in the absence of experimental proof science can accept nothing.? If that is the case, the response had nothing to do with being nonlinear or snide. Try to think of some other possibility. Thats all the help you get.
I wish js1138 would explain to me how he gets from personal maturity to the question of socialism. I think the very idea of "altruism" gives our friend a rash. I don't know why!
Somebody once said that if someone is focused entirely on himself, then he is a problem. If he is focused on something greater than himself, and sees himself within that context, then he is a person. FWIW.
Thanks so much for your hilarious observation, dear 'pipe!
Best I can remember, my main point was that Einstein did indeed cling to the steady state model to the point that he "klugged" a cosmological constant. Afterwards, he regretted that - and yet today, many believe a constant is needed.
The other point was that Einstein's theories support the Platonist paradigm but he took the Aristotle paradigm (mathematics) in his debates with Godel. How strange!
Thank you so much for all of your wonderfully informative essay-posts!
Good afternoon omnivore! RE the above:
All words are, are articulations of reality as we have experienced it. They allow us to fix our experiences in consciousness (memory), and to communicate them to others. Do not disparage words: Even scientists use words to think and communicate. True, the physical world does not heed them directly. But thats not the point: Humans hear them. And words can be enormously powerful in transforming the way people think about reality, and engage in it which certainly has an impact on human cultures, and beyond that, may affect the way people relate to the physical world in ways that can actually affect it. This is hardly the same thing as the disputations of lawyers.
You referenced witches incantations, the magic words that supposedly can change reality. Its clear that the German transcendental idealist philosopher Hegel put great stock in the die Zauberworte, the magic words that can transform reality. He basically wanted to end history as we know it, and start over with a new history in which man would save himself, who would therefore have no further need of God.
Here's a sample of Hegelian "magic words": Every single man is but a blind link in a chain of absolute necessity by which the world builds itself forth. The single man can elevate himself to dominance over an appreciable length of this chain only if he knows the direction in which the great necessity wants to move and if he learns from this knowledge to pronounce the magic words (die Zauberworte) that will evoke it shape.
Well guess what Even though this statement strikes our ear as preposterous, Hegel was right: His system of dialectical science was taken over and improved by Marx, to become the system of dialectical materialism. Which in turn gave rise to communist ideology. And that has certainly had a profound effect on human societies and on the physical planet itself.
You wrote that words dont settle anything between people. If [they] did, these threads would come to some sort of agreement. They don't. They just spin endlessly.
So am I to gather that it is impossible for human beings to reason together, using words? How else could they reason together? What causes the spin you notice is the fact that people are using words to speak past each other, because the participants to the discussion do not share a common perspective, or worldview.
The worldview of science is methodological (metaphysical) naturalism. The scientific method is predicated on observation and measurement it depends on direct observables, or things which sense perception directly perceives. It is an amazing tool in its proper sphere of inquiry. But outside its sphere, in areas of experience that cannot be directly observed, measured, and quantified, science really has nothing to do.
Which is why it troubles me to see so-called scientific methods being used for subject areas outside the competence of science. As Christophe Cardinal Schoenborn has written,
If the Darwinist, taking up Descartes and [Sir Francis] Bacons project of understanding nature according only to material and efficient causes, studies the history of living things and says that he can see no organizing, active principles of whole living substances (formal causes) and no real plan, purpose or design in living things (final causes), then I accept his report without surprise. It is obviously compatible with the full truth that the world of living beings is replete with formality and finality. It comes as no surprise that reductionist science cannot recognize those very aspects of reality it excludes or at least, seeks to exclude by its choice of method .An example of an obvious truth about reality obvious to me at least is that there is more to nature than material and efficient causes. (We may have to agree to disagree about this, omnivore.) There are also formal and final causes, just as Aristotle said. But formal and final causes do not seem to be within the reach of the scientific method.
[T]he modern biologist is free to define his special science on terms as narrow as he finds useful for gaining a certain kind of knowledge. But he may not then turn around and demand the rest of us, unrestricted by his methodological self-limitation, ignore obvious truths about reality .
With formal and final causes, we are dealing with the why (ultimate cause) and the wherefore (ultimate purpose) of things. And these are philosophical, religious, i.e., spiritual questions. Not all scientists are blind to questions of this nature; but some nowadays do seem to deny their validity. I suspect in certain hard cases, the questions are being denied for the precise reason that science cannot treat of them (e.g., Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, Lewontin, et al.). Still, the fact that science cannot deal with them does not make the questions go away: Human beings have been asking precisely this type of question from the dawn of recorded history, and probably before. It is our nature to ask such questions!
Nowadays, it is commonly thought that there is a great divide between faith and reason, between the humanities and the natural sciences. I consider this the most persistent illusion of our time.
As Albert Einstein wrote in 1941: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. This was in answer to a person who asked him what spiritual or religious views Einstein actually held. He said, A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. Einstein recognized himself as a deeply religious person in this sense. For Einstein, faith and reason were not separable, let alone mutually exclusive.
A hundred years after Einsteins pioneering work on the light-quantum (for which he won the Nobel prize) and special relativity, his sense of the inseparability of faith and reason has been almost entirely lost, supplanted by materialist, positivist, and rationalist dogmas that together comprise a doctrine of philosophic materialism that has penetrated to the very heart of modern-day science, which is particularly evident in orthodox Neo-Darwinism. The essential complementarity of faith and reason that Einstein recognized has been recast as the triumph of the rational (reason) over the irrational (faith).
Yet if Einstein is right, there really are superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of foundation by means of reason alone. Any attentive student of human history can tell you that such objects and goals have informed the conduct and progress of human life from time immemorial. Indeed, these objects and goals refer primarily to nonsensory modes of human experience that are superior in rank and worth to the objects of sense experience the domain of the scientific method. As Ellis Sandoz put it, Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself and of what is most precious to mankind a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective.
As we said, such nonsensory modes of experience lie entirely outside the reach of the scientific method as presently constituted: methodological naturalism. But the fact that science cannot reach them does not mean they do not exist in Reality.
Anyhoot, FWIW, I consider faith and reason, philosophy and the natural sciences to be complementarities. They appear to be mutually-exclusive contraries, yet the fact is both are necessary to the life of man and to his exploration of the natural world.
Evidently this was something that Einstein and Bohr could agree on (though Bohr was scrupulous to avoid philosophizing in his science, in a way that Einstein was not).
Late in his life, the Danish government conferred the Order of the Elephant on Niels Bohr an honor normally reserved for royalty and heads of state. So he had to create a coat of arms. The coat of arms he chose featured the famous Yin-Yang symbol of the Far East, the Tao, denoting the essential complementariety implicit in the structure of the reality. He chose as his motto the statement contraries are complementary.
For Bohr, the complementarity principle had profound ramifications outside the physical sciences (e.g., in the humanities) as well as within it (e.g., superposition, indeterminacy, the correspondence principle, etc.). You dont get a complete description of the system -- variously in nature, the universe, reality -- without both terms of the complementarity.
Well Ive probably run on too long, omnivore, but I just wanted to make clear my own view WRT these so-called evo-crevo debates, which seem to leave us spinning to no fruitful purpose.
Then again, it might be useful for people to understand where their debate partners are coming from (this ought to be mutual IMO), hopefully to be able to speak with each other in ways that are meaningful to both partners. People who are hermetically sealed within a particular worldview often have difficulty understanding others, whose worldview is different. Thats where all the spinning endlessly comes from, IMHO, FWIW.
Thanks so very much for your thoughtful essay/post!
Truly I am humbled by the wisdom and eloquence of so many of you.
And I sympathize with you, omnivore those of us who are drawn to math and physics (and engineering) tend to be more comfortable with formulae than verbiage. But that highly structured language cannot respond to the deepest questions of life. The humanities are vital.
On the main point of this sidebar: our entire public education system imperils the liberties for which this country was founded. Publicly funded education has become the primary platform of indoctrination to selected ideologies, politics and morals.
All I can think to add is to underscore the point you were making about Einstein, with this quote in his own words:
Albert Einstein, My Credo, presented to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932, in Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, ed., London: Simon & Schuster, 1993, page 262.
Oh, don't you just HATE IT when that happens! (It's happened to me more than once....)
I'm oh so sorry this happened! I was wondering why you hadn't replied to my post!!! LOL!!!
You think it strange that a "platonist" like Einstein would take the "aristotelian" position in his debate with Godel. I just think that Einstein is this splendid, magnificent, walking-around "complementarity" in his own self! He's an absolutely fascinating personality....
Thank you ever so much for writing, my dearest sister in Christ! I'm so very sorry your first attempt has been lost.
“Sort of like the folks in Acts?”
No, not at all. Apparently you have heard about that passage from someone else and have not studied it on your own.
They lived that way by choice, not coercion. That’s the important point to remember.
Though I can't possibly claim to have "figured him out," I think your observation that the Yin-Yang logo would suit Einstein pretty well is fitting.
On the one hand, it seems very clear to me that Einstein is a thinker of platonist persuasion: He expected science to ultimately find the underlying "geometry" that orders the universe. I'm personally sympathetic to that view. I call it the Logos, or maybe the "algorithm from inception."
On the other hand, as an admirer of Spinoza, he committed himself to a philosophy of strict determinism: Even God is "bound." There is no such thing as "free will": Even God doesn't have free will; he's just executing the "program" (so to speak) that is inherent in his nature, in his "substance." (Einstein really loses me here; I mean I get what Spinoza is saying; I just don't understand why Einstein finds it persuasive.)
In this, I imagine he takes a major departure from Plato's philosophy. He seems to have these two tensions -- Plato and Spinoza -- to reconcile in his own thought, though by the Law of the Excluded Middle, both cannot be "right"; and he himself has said that if there are two mutually-exclusive propositions, at least one of them has to be "wrong."
On the surface, it seems Einstein would perhaps have rejected the Yin-Yang analogy. But it seems he lived it all the same, in his life and work.
So if Einstein conceives of a cosmological constant, it is in answer to his need for a deterministic account of the Universe. Later he admitted he had "kluged" his science by introducing this notion. On the other hand, as you note dearest sister, there may well be a "need" for a cosmological constant in order to reconcile and harmonize physical observations of reality in a mathematical way. If this can be done, it's because of "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" to describe the world.
As you know, Einstein rejected Bohr's (and Heisenberg's) Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, because "God does not play dice" -- a reference to its statistical approach to quantum phenomena.
Lindley finds it "ironic" that Einstein "objected to religious principles in others [like Spinoza, he was what we today call a "secular Jew"] when his authority for disliking quantum mechanics derived from his direct access to the thoughts of 'the Old One' [Einstein's name for God]."
Bohr chastised him for this: "Don't you think caution is needed when using ordinary language to ascribe attributes to God?" Personally, I think that's a dandy question. :^)
A lovely excerpt regarding the "germ of what became Einstein's perennial objection to quantum mechanics" comes to mind, from Lindley's Uncertainty (2007):
Since Einstein could not countenance faster-than-light phenomena, he insisted ... that quantum mechanics could not be the whole story. There must be some way, within a theory grander than mere quantum mechanics, of calculating the behavior of electrons in detail so that you could predict exactly where each and every one would end up. In that case, the probability inherent in quantum mechanics would turn out to be like the probability enshrined in the old kinetic theory of heat. There, atoms have definite properties at all times and behave, in theory, with absolute predictability. But the physicist cannot hope to know precisely what every atom is doing, so is forced to resort to a statistical description. Quantum mechanics ought to work the same way, Einstein insisted. Beneath the surface it ought to be deterministic in the traditional way. And the intrusion of probability would not indicate a fundamental breakdown in physical determinism, only that physicists had not yet figured out the complete picture.Here's another complementarity: Einstein and Bohr themselves! I wouldn't choose between these two men: Both are "right," depending on the context. :^) The "middle" between them ought not to be excluded, for it is what holds the complementarity of their differing views together, in tension. There's no use in "choosing sides" here: You need them both. IMHO, FWIW.
By way of counterargument, Bohr used the newly-minted uncertainty principle to prove there was no way to extract more information about the electrons in Einstein's thought experiment -- without, that is, destroying the diffraction pattern in the process. You could get details of each electron's trajectory before it hit the screen, or you could get the diffraction pattern, but you couldn't get both.
It's not hard to imagine Einstein's exasperation at this response. Of course quantum mechanics can't give you all the information you would like. That was precisely the problem that Einstein wanted to bring into the open. Far from demolishing the difficulty, Bohr had reinforced it. Quantum mechanics couldn't be the whole story.
I love both these guys. Add in Eric Voegelin, and you have my Top Three Greatest Thinkers of the Twentieth Century.
LOLOL! My two cents, FWIW.
Thank you so much dearest sister A-G for your brilliant essay/posts of the past two days! And for your kind support.
Thanx for keeping me pinged ...
They lived that way because they understood it to be according to the instructions of Jesus. I assume the first Christians might have had first or second hand knowledge of Jesus' teachings, and were much closer to the source than we are.
Will keep it up. Am looking forward to hearing from you soon -- actually I hope you will weigh in whenever you feel like it. Soonest.
Thanks so much for writing MHGinTN!
You sound like Descartes raised from the dead. Remember, with or without yakking, no fallacies allowed, for you or Descartes.
Could be. Existence is pretty constant. If the cosmos exists of its own accord, the cosmos is divine. But perhaps that's getting ahead of things. For Plato, it is always touched first with a question, what is, and always is and never becomes . . and what is always becoming, but never is?
Exactly... what if they are both more or less on the right track.(Einstein and Bohr)
I have been in arguments in the past with a person and we were both right(I learned later) but we were seeing a subject from different angles.. with different agendas..
How much we need each other.. Even on this thread.. Observation is such a crap shoot.. Its so easy to have blind spots.. Some lean toward the literal and others lean toward the spiritual.. Some like formulaeic mental precision others the artistic freedom of creative thought..
How wonderful it will be when human language becomes obsolete.. and spiritual complementarity becomes obvious.. And spiritual harmonics becomes normal.. When thought becomes colorful light and musical harmony on a field of joyful sacrifice.. and words are primitive gruntings..
Did I say anything?... (shineing fingernails) ;)
Einstein certainly was a fascinating man. Perhaps it was his uncanny understanding of the "lofty structure" of the universe that compelled him to believe in his heart of hearts that the quantum world is equally sensible, e.g. local realism.
In the end, geometric physics may hold the key to unlocking some of the mysteries of the quantum, e.g. superposition, non-locality. That would be ironic considering the shifting of views towards a cosmological constant.
Nevertheless, Einstein's story is a case study in how presuppositions can become traps and embarassments - and conversely, that the instincts of our brightest minds should be remembered, even when they cannot be formalized as a theory. Modern scientists would be wise to take note.
You said a mouthful (;
How much we need each other -- indeed!
What a beautiful essay/post, dear 'pipe! Thank you!
Yes; the relations of being and becoming: I love Plato's cosmology.... Heraclitus thought there must be something that persists changeless, and something capable of change. Leibniz thought the universe fundamentally depends on two principles: (1) that which stays the same and (2) that which is capable of changing.
I see an analogy to these philosophical propositions in the first and second laws of thermodynamics:
Symmetry, Broken-SymmetryI find this so fascinating. :^)
and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
The laws of thermodynamics are special laws that sit above the ordinary laws of nature as laws about laws or laws upon which the other laws depend (Swenson & Turvey, 1991). It can be successfully shown that without the first and second laws, which express symmetry properties of the world, there could be no other laws at all. The first law or the law of energy conservation which says that all real-world processes involve transformations of energy, and that the total amount of energy is always conserved expresses time-translation symmetry. Namely, there is something that unifies the world (constitutes it as a continuum) which if you go forward or backward in time remains entirely the same. It is, in effect, through this conservation or out of it that all real-world dynamics occurs, yet the first law itself is entirely indifferent to these changes or dynamics. As far as the first law is concerned, nothing changes at all, and this is just the definition of a symmetry, something that remains invariant, indifferent or unchanged given certain transformations, and the remarkable point with respect to the first law is that it refers to that which is conserved (the quantity of energy) or remains symmetric under all transformations.
Although intuited at least as early as the work of the Milesian physicists, and in modern times particularly by Leibniz, the first law is taken to have been first explicitly "discovered" in the first part of the last century by Mayer, then Joule, and later Helmholz with the demonstration of the equivalence of heat and other forms of energy, and completed in this century with Einsteins's demonstration that matter is also a form of energy....
The second law was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot's earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the "fall" or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term "entropy" to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference. -- Rod Swenson
Thank you oh so much for writing, cornelis!
BTW, fractals also remind me of this relationship between that which changes and that which does not, e.g. the Mandelbrot set. Another example, the shorter the ruler, the longer the coastline.
Going back to near the bang, quark confinement is an early evidence of such 'collapse', otherwise called condensation. As variable expressions of dimension time and dimension space evidenced, continuua wov the ven of the expressions came into existence into which energy may manifest differing qualities ... the qualities being characteristics of the condesnation phenomena we measure and quantify as forces and spatio-temporal reality.
I might add, though it is inferred in the above missive the dimensions are the characterisitcs of The Creator which He has offered/allowed ‘disunified’ expression of and each dimension has three variable characteristics (like space is linear, planar, and volumetric; time is past, present, and future in a similitude of spatial variability). The above is a new paradigm for considering the universe, not meant to be a replacement notion for consensus cosmology ... but I’m working on it.
betty boop, Im getting shades of Lanza here too because a collapse of a wave function (e.g. observation) effects the field itself.
As a Christian, I agree in that God created the geometry (space and time) first. "In the beginning, God created" - Gen 1:1
I further assert that the number and types of dimensions of this geometry (temporal v spatial, compactified v expanded) are not only unknown to mortals but are unknowable.
Our vision and minds sense three dimensions of space and one dimension of time and mathematically, we perceive additional dimensions likely exist and mathematically, we find evidence of it (e.g. Strominger/Vafa calculation of the Bekenstein/Hawking black hole entropy using string theory.) But we cannot step outside space and time to observe the creation in its entirety so the full extent of God's geometry will remain unknown to mortals, as God has said here:
M., I'm so glad you recognize that the idea of a "divine cosmos" doesn't come from Plato. Cornelis states Plato's questions on the matter, above at #228: "...what is, and always is and never becomes . . and what is always becoming, but never is?"
For Plato, "What is, and always is and never becomes?" is Being. "What is always becoming, but never is?" is existence. The Kosmos and all things in it belong to the latter, to the realm of becoming, or existence. That which exists does so because it "participates" in Being. That is, what exists is born from Being, is ordered by it, and eventually returns to it.
This existent called Kosmos is therefore not divine, but finite and contingent on eternal Being. Plato thought that the Kosmos was "a living creature endowed with soul and intelligence" -- the same description he uses for man, the "microkosmos." Man is the image or reflection (eikon) of the Kosmos, WRT which he is "syngenes," or alike by nature -- alive, ensouled, intelligent.
Just as the Kosmos, belonging to the realm of becoming, gains existence from its participation in Being, so does the microkosmos, man.
Yet there is another fascinating aspect to Plato's cosmology. As Eric Voegelin writes, for Plato, "the realms of being are ... penetrated to their limits by psyche. As far as metaphysical construction is concerned, no corner of the universe is left to the materialists as a foothold from where the order of the psyche could be negated on principle. The order of the cosmos has become consubstantial with the order of the polis and of man."
Now as for this Being: It is eternal; and it is "Beyond" the Kosmos. For Plato, this was the God of the Beyond, beyond the Kosmos, beyond space and time; and yet somehow involved with the Kosmos, and drawing it into its good order at all levels.
Plato offers no details about this God, this ultimate, changeless being. I sense a failure of language, of adequate concepts, to articulate his own direct experiences of a certain divine drawing from the Beyond manifesting itself in his own consciousness, in psyche and nous (mind). I imagine Plato's God of the Beyond to be the "Unknown God" of Acts: 17-23. Thus Saint Paul suggests that Christ is not only the fulfillment of the law given unto the Jews, but also the fulfillment of the metaphysics given unto the Greeks.
So just as you say, M., "the origin of the cosmos is divine." Certainly Plato thought so.
I'm intrigued, fascinated, by the cosmological model you're developing. Not to criticize, but there were some typos in the second graph that perplexed me a little. I hope you can set me straight! I've been thinking a good deal of late about the problem of time. Actually, reading William James' Principles of Psychology has caused me to reflect on the way humans experience time. If man is microkosmos, maybe such understandings can lead to a wider application, i.e., at the level of the Kosmos itself.
At least, I think this would be so, provided Plato was right about the living, conscious, intelligent nature of the Kosmos at large, which, like man, is an existent drawing its life from participation in divine Being.
Thank you so much for your fascinating essay/post!
Good article. Good thread. Good. Life is good.
Justin Martyr certainly thought Plato was the best school of philosophy for anyone seeking God. And then of course, he heard the Master's call and became Christian. In retrospect, he noticed some Christian symbolism in Plato's writing. That would not surprise me at all since God is certainly able to work such things together according to His will, e.g. language and concepts.
For me, each time the concepts of "being" and "becoming" are brought to mind, I find myself drawn to a Name of God, I AM, and our part in creation, this heaven and earth - and the heaven and earth to come.
He says Kant tries to bracket existence, but what quickly happens after the existence of the cosmos is taken for granted is that nature is made one with existence. That's a divine cosmos.
It's a real pickle. Gilson cites Hume: "the will of God is the sole real foundation for the existence of the world. The divine will is something. The existing world is something quite different. Yet the one is posited by the other." Gilson asks, "How can such a relation be conceived?
. . . If the order of existence is radically other than that of essence, no essence can entail its own existence, not only in things, but even in God. Had any one of these philosophers remembered what another philosopher, now lost in the darkness of the Dark Ages, had said on the question, it might have altered their whole outlook on the problem. But they could not remember that, while no essence entails its existence, there might well be such an existence as is both its own essence and the source of all other essences and existences. They could not remember it because the very men who were supposed to hold that truth in trust had themselves very long ago forgotten it.
Nobody from Plotinus to Heidegger let that slip by. Not even Kant the physicist. Being, though, that's another matter.
Does Plato think this Beyond exists?
Evidently Plato had (cognitive) experiences of this Beyond. In terms of purely human language, we then could say that this Beyond must be said "to exist" in some fashion. But if it "exists," it does not do so in the same manner that creaturely nature exists.
Unless you want to say that the "Unknown God," the God of the Beyond, is self-caused and totally self-subsistent, and is therefore the complete cause and ground of itself, just as it is the complete cause and ground of all of nature.
But we understand causation as contingent on space and time, and God, being eternal, is not in space and time. So to me, such a formulation -- that god is self-caused -- is really pretty senseless. It would be natural for us to ask, "caused out of what, and when?", which questions would be unanswerable. So I don't know what it gains one to think of God in such terms.
In any case, it seems Plato does not take this route. The problem for Plato seems to have been that he could sense the presence and have "contacts" with the god; and on the basis of reason alone could recognize the goodness and truth of the god; but discover that any adequate description of him in purely human language is impossible, for the simple reason that no adequate concepts exist. So Plato in his wisdom provides no details of the god, but only of his relations with it (i.e., the helkein -- the "drawing" or "pull," of which we also hear in the Gospel of St. John -- and the resulting zetesis -- the search for god).
Plato lived well before the Incarnation of Christ, manifestly a self-revelation of God, wherein He freely tells us about Himself. Of course the Holy Scriptures also provide a self-revelation of God. But these were evidently unknown to Plato because, by and large, they were compiled after his own time.
It is extraordinary to me that Plato could get so far on the basis of reason alone, ultimately to find reason insufficient; and (it seems) to tacitly acknowledge this.
Well, that's how I'd answer your question cornelis, FWIW. Thank you ever so much for writing!
Indeed! Lanza's got a piece of the puzzle, IMHO. What we observe -- and just as importantly, choose not to observe -- affects the information we have about the world. We choose what we observe, and in so doing obscure the reality of what we chose not to observe, which becomes information unavailable to us, not only in the present moment, but forever after (i.e., the information "lost" at the time of the collapse of the wave function is irretrievable).
Now we make a description of what we have observed as if "the missing information" did not exist; we communicate our experiences to others with a false confidence that we really know what we're talking about. Thus we "reduce" reality to a partial description. In effect, this is a falsification of reality; if it becomes socially effective, the way we think about the world, and the way we act within it, may actually have the power to transform it.
Marxists, social progressives, and all other constructors of Second Realities actually depend on this process in order to make a new world that is "better" than the one God made for us. Their faith in this possibility has already changed the world in innumerable ways, including having effects, not only on human societies, but also on physical nature (e.g., through the destruction of war, and the exceedingly high rates of environmental pollution in communist states, for examples).
It seems very clear to me that human consciousness can actually have an impact on the world at the macrolevel, just as it certainly does at the microlevel.
It's strange; that's all I can say for now. Thank you so much for your elegant essay-post, my dearest sister in Christ!