In what way is this prophecy "scientific"? Do you mean it's a prophecy
about science, or that it's based on science. I'd agree with the
former, but not with the latter - it seems to be based on the writings
of Robert Rankin more than anything. In fact it bears a striking
similarity to some of the ideas found in "The Sprouts Of Wrath" and
similar novels. Are you sure you're not him in disguise?

Sleepyhead wrote:
In what way is this prophecy "scientific"? Do you mean it's a prophecy
about science, or that it's based on science. I'd agree with the
former, but not with the latter - it seems to be based on the writings
of Robert Rankin more than anything. In fact it bears a striking
similarity to some of the ideas found in "The Sprouts Of Wrath" and
similar novels. Are you sure you're not him in disguise?



I do not know the genesis of the other posts, but my post (tomcat) is
based -- to a high degree -- on science.

Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, pretty much showed that
space and time are forms of intuition, not in reality itself. In
short, my post is based on formal metaphysics in the discipline of
philosophy.

If what I say seems to picture a rathr dry universe, let me assure you
that it is mere analysis of the condition of our experiencing the
universe, not an alteration of it. The universe is just a beautiful as
before.

In fact, I regard the universe as an incredible creation, one that I
enjoy, others enjoy, and one that will become more enjoyable all the
time if we improve our values along with our science.



tomcat

Well having read the Critique of Pure Reason I can honestly say that I
don't really 'get' Kant's philosophy - I'm more Wittgenstein oriented
myself. But, to return to the argument at hand ...

The problem I have with George's post doesn't lie with the content, but
with what George thinks that content proves. As a piece of creative
writing, for instance, it reads interestingly enough. But prophecy or
science!? I would say it's neither of those, although clearly George
wishes it were both!

Sleepyhead wrote:
Well having read the Critique of Pure Reason I can honestly say that I
don't really 'get' Kant's philosophy - I'm more Wittgenstein oriented
myself. But, to return to the argument at hand ...

The problem I have with George's post doesn't lie with the content, but
with what George thinks that content proves. As a piece of creative
writing, for instance, it reads interestingly enough. But prophecy or
science!? I would say it's neither of those, although clearly George
wishes it were both!


We get 3 dimensional personality from 3 dimensional space? And, from
this, we can deduce God?

I'll stick with Kant.

Kant doesn't talk about "God" but he does explain that space/time does
not exist in our percepts but is, instead, necessary for them.
Therefore, we are using time/space to order the percepts . . . for our
viewing.

If space/time are an intuitive procedure then we exist in a
singularity. Phenomena gush out from this -- central area -- but not
into space and time, but in space/time order for viewing.

There is, moreover, a layered cake of ordering. First, there is an
original synthetic unity of apperception, i.e., that from which the
possible percepts come. Then, there is our manifold of experience
which is our ordering of what is possible.

In religious terms, we have here an analysis explaining God, soul, and
experience. It also shows that each is just an extension of the other.


tomcat

We get 3 dimensional personality from 3 dimensional space? And, from
this, we can deduce God?

Oh sure - it's a terrible argument alright! I'd rather have Kant than
George when it comes to philosophy!

Kant doesn't talk about "God" but he does explain that space/time does not exist in our percepts but is, instead, necessary for them.

It's interesting that Kant & early-Wittgenstein both end up saying
something similar in relation to general concepts like "Space", "Time",
"Colour" and so on.

I'd forgotten all that stuff about "The manifold"! Ah! Quite takes me
back!

Sleepyhead wrote:
Oh sure - it's a terrible argument alright! I'd rather have Kant than
George when it comes to philosophy!

Kant doesn't talk about "God" but he does explain that space/time does not exist in our percepts but is, instead, necessary for them.

It's interesting that Kant & early-Wittgenstein both end up saying
something similar in relation to general concepts like "Space", "Time",
"Colour" and so on.

I'd forgotten all that stuff about "The manifold"! Ah! Quite takes me
back!



Actually, I see philosophers accurately describing what they see, but
it is a lot like blind men describing an elephant. Each philosopher
grabbed something a little different from the others.

Ludwig Wittgenstein looked at . . . words. Philosophers prior to him
were describing things, then they woke up and realized that the tool of
their analysis was getting in the way of their descriptions.

Words are essentially 'signs' of things. But the signs are themselves
'things', unique things that yet signify other things.

They are made of ink or sound and are called convention. But many
things are made by man, yet they are things nonetheless. Forks and
knifes, tables and chairs, are all 'manufactured' things.

Wittgenstein like to show how words blend with others, and never quite
mean precisely anything. This parallels how things are never perfect
and a bad ashtray might be a good pencil holder.

The world surrounds us with an incredible array of things, sights,
sounds, colors . . . even adventure. It is clearly a creation, for how
else could it happen? To have a creation implies a Creator.

We know the world. We experience it's tangible effects, i.e., we drink
orange juice and go swimming, and the like. The more we explore the
more we find. The Creator, however, is a little different.

We grab the elephant's tail and proclaim "it's a snake!" We touch the
foot and say "it's a rock." The elephant is none of those things. The
Creator eludes us.

Metaphysics, and ontology in particular, are attempts to find the
Creator by searching the things around us. To make something, however,
is to remove all that it is not.

The Creator, I suspect, is not like his creations at all. And, since
time/space are not 'out there' but, in truth, we exist in a single
place, the Creator is with us -- not separate as it seems.

Does an artist cherish his works? Does a painter protect his canvasses
from harm? I suspect our Creator does the same.

-------------

I have taken an interest in this, apparently, religious thread because
I take philosophy to be a confirmation of religious principles,
especially metaphysics and ontology. It even explains the Lord Jesus,
our Protector.


tomcat