About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

[you can safely put away the claws, Wolf]
My claws are only for those who attack first, are too full of themselves or pester me inordinately.  You do not fall into those categories.

w

(Edited by Robert Davison on 6/27, 6:33pm)


Post 41

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 6:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, I saw Selleck not too long ago. The guy's in his 60's. What do you think these aging Hollywood actors would look like without the dye jobs, the hair transplants, the makeup, the obligatory workouts at the gym and the plastic surgery (it happens, even for men!). I guess they missed the bags under his eyes. More importantly, Mike, what would YOU look like if you had all that stuff? Why you'd look better than Tom Selleck without them, wouldn't you? Well, wouldn't you?? Okay, maybe you wouldn't, but hey . . . I'm sure there's a downside there somewhere - like having women in their 20's still interested in you?!

- Bill

Post 42

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As for Jefferson, I get the impression he might have been a closet atheist.
Afraid not, but if it gives you comfort to believe it . . .

Here is your answer (if such it be) in Jefferson's letter to John Adams from Monticello, written August 15, 1820. Did someone say that TJ was a man of letters?
But enough of criticism: let me turn to your puzzling letter of May 12. on matter, spirit, motion etc. It's croud of scepticisms kept me from sleep. I read it, and laid it down: read it, and laid it down, again and again: and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne, ‘I feel: therefore I exist.’ I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can concieve thought to be an action of a particular organisation of matter, formed for that purpose by it's creator, as well as that attraction in an action of matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in the tract of their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and, by that will, put matter into motion, then the materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart.

At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that `God is a spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the antient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter. Origen says `Deus reapse corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum corporum ratione, incorporeus.' Tertullian `quid enim deus nisi corpus?' and again `quis negabit deumesse corpus? Etsi deus spiritus, spiritus etiam corpus est, sui generis, in sua effigie.' St. Justin Martyr `{to Theion phamen einai asomaton oyk oti asomaton—epeide de to me krateisthai ypo tinos, toy krateisthai timioteron esti, dia toyto kaloymen ayton asomaton.}' And St. Macarius, speaking of angels says `quamvis enim subtilia sint, tamen in substantia, forma et figura, secundum tenuitatem naturae eorum, corpora sunt tenuia.' And St. Austin, St. Basil, Lactantius, Tatian, Athenagoras and others, with whose writings I pretend not a familiarity, are said by those who are, to deliver the same doctrine. Turn to your Ocellus d'Argens 97. 105. and to his Timaeus 17. for these quotations. In England these Immaterialists might have been burnt until the 29. Car. 2. when the writ de haeretico comburendo was abolished: and here until the revolution, that statute not having extended to us. All heresies being now done away with us, these schismatists are merely atheists, differing from the material Atheist only in their belief that `nothing made something,' and from the material deist who believes that matter alone can operate on matter.

Rejecting all organs of information therefore but my senses, I rid myself of the Pyrrhonisms with which an indulgence in speculations hyperphysical and antiphysical so uselessly occupy and disquiet the mind. A single sense may indeed be sometimes decieved, but rarely: and never all our senses together, with their faculty of reasoning. They evidence realities; and there are enough of these for all the purposes of life, without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence. I am sure that I really know many, many, things, and none more surely than that I love you with all my heart, and pray for the continuance of your life until you shall be tired of it yourself.
(Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings, New York: Library of America, 1994, pp. 1440-1445. )

Post 43

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, TJ's letter sounds like that of a closet atheist to me.  Thanks for sharing!

Post 44

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 12:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

Closet Christian maybe, atheist no.  God is everywhere in this writings, one of those writings is a Bible which includes only the verses he believes to be the genuine words of Christ.


Post 45

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The clinchers ...

======================
When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart.
======================

and

======================
At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is.
======================

and

======================
In England these Immaterialists might have been burnt until the 29. Car. 2. when the writ de haeretico comburendo was abolished: and here until the revolution, that statute not having extended to us.

All heresies being now done away with us, these schismatists are merely atheists, differing from the material Atheist only in their belief that `nothing made something,' and from the material deist who believes that matter alone can operate on matter.
======================

and

======================
Rejecting all organs of information therefore but my senses, I rid myself of the Pyrrhonisms with which an indulgence in speculations hyperphysical and antiphysical so uselessly occupy and disquiet the mind. A single sense may indeed be sometimes decieved, but rarely: and never all our senses together, with their faculty of reasoning.

They evidence realities; and there are enough of these for all the purposes of life, without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.
======================

Ed


Post 46

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

According to Heisenberg,  there is a built-in uncertainty in the Universe. It is possible for something to be created out of nothing, given enough time! On a subatomic level it is impossible to pinpoint things down to an infinite precision. And not because of any technological failings: this is a constraint of the Universe itself. A zero energy is impossible since it would be a precise state. This is the reason that nothing can be cooled below -273 degrees C (Absolute Zero). An atom must retain at least one quantum of energy and this keeps it from cooling below Absolute Zero. This means that nothing can ever be at rest.


Post 47

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf, get your claws out (we're about to quarrel) ...

==================
According to Heisenberg,  there is a built-in uncertainty in the Universe.
==================

"Uncertainty" is epistemological, "the Universe" is metaphysical -- you don't get to "mix" the 2. Here's how to say better what it is that you were trying to say here ...

Existence isn't Identity.



==================
It is possible for something to be created out of nothing, given enough time!
==================

Only if ...

Existence isn't Identity.



==================
On a subatomic level it is impossible to pinpoint things down to an infinite precision.
==================

"Infinite precision" is an anti-concept. There is only such a thing as precision within a stipulated confidence interval. There is no such thing as -- and man would have no such use for -- "infinite precision."



==================
A zero energy is impossible since it would be a precise state.
==================

A zero energy is impossible because existence exists. If existence didn't exist, then a zero energy would be entirely possible (though meaninglessly).



==================
This is the reason that nothing can be cooled below -273 degrees C (Absolute Zero). An atom must retain at least one quantum of energy and this keeps it from cooling below Absolute Zero. This means that nothing can ever be at rest.
==================

So what?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/28, 8:59pm)


Post 48

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 4:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not quite - zero energy means nothing exists, not nothing exist at rest....

Post 49

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 7:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Heisenberg's uncertainy principal has nothing to do with epistemology. This is quantum physics and belongs in the metaphysical realm. You were talking about those things which you can test with your senses, so I thought I would bounce this off of you.

Post 50

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf wrote:

This is quantum physics and belongs in the metaphysical realm.

Objectivist physicist David Harriman offers an ARI audio tape lecture on The Philosophical Corruption of Physics highly critical of modern quantum mechanics and its Kantian roots.  I recommend it.  He would take these views of metaphysical uncertainty to task.


Post 51

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 2:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf, what you mean then is built-in physical indeterminacy -- not a built-in uncertainty.

Luke, thanks. I'll check Harriman out.

Ed


Post 52

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 4:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes Ed.

Luke,

It is about time someone took this to task. It has been the cornerstone of quantum physics since 1927.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.