Re: Rationalist
Reply #24 –
Could you start first by justifying induction? No, of course, not!
I can start with the ABCs, if you need to.
By all means, do!
———————————————————
@Sparta: You're beginning to make sense… Er, I mean, you've seemed to recognize the non-sense of others. ( I look forward to your debunking my theories!)
There are, of course and indubitably, physical processes underlying thought, thinkers and a Universe that accommodates such.
There may well be constraints upon systemizations of our recent and provisional understanding of "it all" and how It came to be. (Note: The capitalization rightly becomes a confusing and confounding factor… Th. Aquinas knew more than you or I, and you'd think him a dolt, James?) But you, James, don't seem to recognize the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, the prospective expansion of its ambit, and the primeval urge that contenances it. You are but a voyeur of science!
Take your hand out of your pocket and open a book… Any one you happen upon, for this point: One letter, misconstrued because of lack of pressure from the press or ink from the pot, would –necessarily!– have changed the world? Or perhaps you'd include poor eyesight? (Remember: There is nothing but Physics!) Or a mere diminution of ambient light?
But you claim more: The world is often presumed to be our little Earth. You'd have the entirety of creation (…there's no better word for it) be re-cast, by this slight alteration.
Did I call it a "slight" alteration? Forgive me! Since Physics is all there is, this -to you and me- mere fudge factor is, on your view, such a mountainous cavalcade of "real" events that its momentous repercussions re-convene the Big Bang constituents for reconsideration…!
But how would you know?
I admit, your confusion of epistemology with ontology is common enough. As is your "understanding" of science. As is your smug attitude. But commonality -like "science by consensus"- is not an argument.
At least, not one that would be acceptable to a rational auditor.
So, by any means you can muster, James: Give me A and B. Then C… Presumably, you have X, Y and Z up your sleeve! So, don't be surprised or act coy if I call you for dealing from the bottom of the deck.
(I'm an old hand at this game.)