>when you do so much empiricism and physicalism that you accidentally become a Platonist
>When you hate neoliberalism so much you begin accidently reconstructing trad arguments from 50 years ago.
>>24923217I think the problem with people like Tegmark is their beliefs in certain phenomena are anti-empiricism to a degree. They construct this ontology of the world 1-for-1 being mathematical abstraction. Which is dumb because so much of it (especially multiverse theory) is just a circumvention of prima causa at the expense of building a theory of reality with empirical backing.
>>24923257The multiverse theory doesn't even fix the Fine Tuning Problem. To avoid the conclusion that Boltzmann Brain-like awareness and essentially random universes that only appear law-like by chance are vastly more common than rational, livable universes, you still need to posit some sort of specific "multiverse production mechanism" that will only tend to create certain sorts of universes. If you allow "every universe that is mathematically describable" you actually make the problem worse. But then what is the cause of such a mechanism?It is wild to me that people will accept "everything possible is true," and even "there is some universe where Jesus Christ really did spontaneously come back to life in the tomb due to 'just so' quantum fluctuations that really exists," but not the idea that finite being is born from the infinite and that there is thus a first cause whose essence entails existence, which is truly beyond all finitude.You can't even really call it dogmatism because this preference doesn't come from a propositional belief so much as a heavily engrained aesthetic preference for the impersonal and mechanistic, which ironically has nothing to do with lived experience (we experience everything as persons, and world suffused with value and intentionality) but rather with the aesthetics of a particular Reformation era move to make the world cohere with the voluntarism. The great irony here is that this move was originally largely a 'bracketing operation' to table difficult questions while working on easier areas in the natural sciences, but became its own sort of religious world view that came to dominate modernity.Pic related. Dude is obviously very smart but does not seem to be able to countenance, even in fantasy settings with actual magic, any other world view being possible.
>>24923217how is naturalized metaphysics platonism?
>>24923217I have noticed that materialism/physicalism and materialists/physicalists always end up collapsing in a few ways.1. Reversion back to conventional idealism or ideal/material dualism for various reasons. 2. Saying it’s actually energy/information, or that archetypes or non material things like time or math technically exist but that supernatural stuff like the divine does not while still insisting upon an essentially physicalist paradigm.3. Dodging the issue by denying the existence of metaphysics and going positivist and saying only empirical measurements can be said to exist while not acknowledging that this premise is still predicated upon metaphysical principles which you just are not being honest about.
>>24923305I was incredibly, incredibly disappointed to discover that Bakker was basically just a more well-read smarmy reddit atheist after reading this series. The rape and stuff was a little annoying, but I had never read a work of fiction that actually had some thought put into its own philosophical underpinnings before and greatly enjoyed it. It's really too bad he'll never finish it though.I pray that such people get to have something like a mystical experience or a vision of the divine one day, because I feel that they have the capacity to become so much greater for it yet must grope blindly on with their earthly philosophies as guides until that day comes.
>>24923305in his defense as someone who tries to study stuff like this (but like you will problably think I am doing it wrong , just a disclaimer). I think that , it can really fuck you up once you are already in the cage of this type of thinking to get out , because every definition of everything is set up , to go back into it. I don't think you could just imagine true disagreement because of it , somone abandoning religios dogma or some kind of very ingrained idea at least tends to have an inbluit frame of reference from within , that can couse other problem , but someone beliving in ideas with this type of characteristic , don't have that , even imagining a disagreement is impossible , as you used for your fictional example , all of it comes back into it , in some way or another. in a sence , they were never told no in this specific state of view , it just wasn't something that could be allowed to be quesitoned.basically. I did catch a little bit of it in a wierd sence and I really wonder if you did not anon. is not like I agree with it , but thinking about this ideas and playing with them does cause a headeck I hope me chatching a little bit of it comes from being a brain damaged retardo and not a more primodial problem , becaus I am solving it either way.
>>24923305It's a values thing. It is generally presented as "childish" or a lack of virtue not to assume being itself in impersonal and mechanistic at its core. Charles Taylor covers this pretty well in A Secular Age. It's closer to a religious culture than a philosophy though.
>>24923234I just don't like Fisher. hate, hate, hate him.
>>24924710qrd? I just got that book three weeks ago and have been looking for an excuse to start it.
>>24924715Here is a good short overview of his closed world system idea, and notion of spin. https://ubcgfcf.com/charles-taylor-and-the-myth-of-the-secular/You could also ask Chat GPT for a summary of the "buffered self" and "fragilization," and the resulting "nova effect."A Secular Age is a fantastic work in that it is extremely accessible for philosophy (you can even listen to it decently I've found) and yet packed with new insights or solid evidence, instead of repeating the same thesis over and over for hundreds of pages in between fluff like most popular sci/phi. So it's hard to give a QED because there is so much there, but those are core concepts.Pic related are good too though because they flesh out his arguments with a granular account of history and show just how contingent (and based in particular tensions in Reformation theology) the Enlightenment categories that claim to be the result of context-free "pure reason" really are. Millbank is the best but least accessible. Schindler probably has the most powerful thesis but can be a bit polemical and is also less accessible. I found Harrison fairly straightforward, and obviously MacIntyre is a classic. Funkenstein is extremely detail oriented, which is good if you aren't totally convinced.
>>24924950Will do. I'm probably going to read it next year
>>24924950Forgot to mention I finished After Virtue this past year. It was excellent..rip Prof. McIntyre. God rest his soul.
>>24923217>when you do so much progressive liberalism you become a fascist.
>When you do so much atheism and amphetamines that you accidentally become a Calvinist
>>24924950>You could also ask Chat GPTthis faggot really expects us to take him seriously after saying this
>>24924185I'm number 3 in your list. I just disagree that it's predicated on metaphysical principles at all.
>>24924950Thanks anonI'm a different anon that has that tome sitting on my shelf and have not been inspired to tackle it until now
>>24927194How do you account for universals, which are inherent to belief of anything empirically deduced.
>>24927194
