• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

"Naturalism"; Any takers?

But to say that an object must do this or that seems... off. Going far beyond what can be empirically confirmed.
Why? Do we have any reason to think an object wouldn't fall down in the same way on a planet with the same gravity as Earth's, billions of light years away?
We have every reason to predict that it will do so, unless we should encounter evidence to the contrary. That is not the same thing as must. "Will" is statistics. "Must" is anthropomorphization. In my opinion.
 
In fact, objects do not fall down all the same way on earth. The same object dropped twice, especially something light like a feather, may fall differently depending on air currents, air pressure, etc.
 
But to say that an object must do this or that seems... off. Going far beyond what can be empirically confirmed.
Why? Do we have any reason to think an object wouldn't fall down in the same way on a planet with the same gravity as Earth's, billions of light years away?
We have every reason to predict that it will do so, unless we should encounter evidence to the contrary. That is not the same thing as must. "Will" is statistics. "Must" is anthropomorphization. In my opinion.
I don't know, seems like a safe bet to me.
 
But to say that an object must do this or that seems... off. Going far beyond what can be empirically confirmed.
Why? Do we have any reason to think an object wouldn't fall down in the same way on a planet with the same gravity as Earth's, billions of light years away?
We have every reason to predict that it will do so, unless we should encounter evidence to the contrary. That is not the same thing as must. "Will" is statistics. "Must" is anthropomorphization. In my opinion.
I don't know, seems like a safe bet to me.
It is. But statistics and destiny are not synonyms. Should not be.
 
In fact, objects do not fall down all the same way on earth. The same object dropped twice, especially something light like a feather, may fall differently depending on air currents, air pressure, etc.
I mean yeah, atmosphere changes the way things fall. What about on Earth-like planets that have no atmosphere? Probably are billions of those. Is there one where rocks would magically fall upwards? I don't see why there would be.
 
In fact, objects do not fall down all the same way on earth. The same object dropped twice, especially something light like a feather, may fall differently depending on air currents, air pressure, etc.
I mean yeah, atmosphere changes the way things fall. What about on Earth-like planets that have no atmosphere? Probably are billions of those. Is there one where rocks would magically fall upwards? I don't see why there would be.

If it is an earth-like planet, it will have an atmosphere. But I am not sure what your point is. Nobody shoud expect anything ever to fall up. But as I noted earlier, this is because gravity is an exceptionless regularity, which does not prove it MUST be that way, or that the inverse-square “law” is a law at all, instead of being a description of how thing go in this (contingent) world. In a universe of four spatial dimensions that can be observed and experienced, gravity would be described by the inverse cube, making stable orbits impossible and likely ruling out observers to begin with.
 
In fact, objects do not fall down all the same way on earth. The same object dropped twice, especially something light like a feather, may fall differently depending on air currents, air pressure, etc.
I mean yeah, atmosphere changes the way things fall. What about on Earth-like planets that have no atmosphere? Probably are billions of those. Is there one where rocks would magically fall upwards? I don't see why there would be.

If it is an earth-like planet, it will have an atmosphere. But I am not sure what your point is. Nobody shoud expect anything ever to fall up.
My point is that given certain conditions, i.e. the structure of our Universe for instance, things would only fall down.
 
In fact, objects do not fall down all the same way on earth. The same object dropped twice, especially something light like a feather, may fall differently depending on air currents, air pressure, etc.
I mean yeah, atmosphere changes the way things fall. What about on Earth-like planets that have no atmosphere? Probably are billions of those. Is there one where rocks would magically fall upwards? I don't see why there would be.

If it is an earth-like planet, it will have an atmosphere. But I am not sure what your point is. Nobody shoud expect anything ever to fall up.
My point is that given certain conditions, i.e. the structure of our Universe for instance, things would only fall down.

Yes, I agree. I have not said otherwise.
 
In fact, objects do not fall down all the same way on earth. The same object dropped twice, especially something light like a feather, may fall differently depending on air currents, air pressure, etc.
I mean yeah, atmosphere changes the way things fall. What about on Earth-like planets that have no atmosphere? Probably are billions of those. Is there one where rocks would magically fall upwards? I don't see why there would be.

If it is an earth-like planet, it will have an atmosphere. But I am not sure what your point is. Nobody shoud expect anything ever to fall up.
My point is that given certain conditions, i.e. the structure of our Universe for instance, things would only fall down.

Yes, I agree. I have not said otherwise.
So then, according to the structure of our Universe, things *must* behave a certain way.
 
In fact, objects do not fall down all the same way on earth. The same object dropped twice, especially something light like a feather, may fall differently depending on air currents, air pressure, etc.
I mean yeah, atmosphere changes the way things fall. What about on Earth-like planets that have no atmosphere? Probably are billions of those. Is there one where rocks would magically fall upwards? I don't see why there would be.

If it is an earth-like planet, it will have an atmosphere. But I am not sure what your point is. Nobody shoud expect anything ever to fall up.
My point is that given certain conditions, i.e. the structure of our Universe for instance, things would only fall down.

Yes, I agree. I have not said otherwise.
So then, according to the structure of our Universe, things *must* behave a certain way.

Things will behave a certain way, not must.
 
This could be a good thread, if peope would take it seriously. :) It’s a great topic.
 
One line of thought is that the universe as we experience is an anthropic effect. Certainly this universe is not necessarily, in the logical sense. Some people argue for nomological as opposed to logical necessity, but I am unpersuaded. The physicist Max Tegmark has assembled a taxonomy of possible universes and concluded that probably the only one we could find ourselves in, is this one.
 
What’s the difference between naturalism and determinism?
Determinism is the implied anti- to the doctrine of free will. Naturalism seems to be a rephrasing of atheism to account for all phenomena defined as supernatural in the Western European philosophical system rather than just gods per se. Plenty of fervently atheistic materialists believe in free will, the concept began as religious but isn't actually tied to Christianity in any essential way. One can believe that one makes "free" choices without suppsoing that God specifically has granted them that freedom. Likewise, plenty of determinists are most decidely believers in the supernatural. See: John Calvin and the doctrine of predestination.
 
Another take

Naturalism is a philosophical and literary worldview asserting that everything arises from natural properties and causes, while supernatural or spiritual explanations are rejected.

Spiritual assertions

The universe is an extension of my mind.
The universe is conscious.

The Akashic Records are a spiritual concept describing a cosmic library or energetic database that stores every thought, word, emotion, and event from the past, present, and future.

And so on. Examples of differences are he;pful.

For most of the 70s I drifted through and read a variety of hings. Worked enough to pay rent and eat.

And philosophy is a deep well.

Anti-naturalism (Politics): A political and ethical framework that opposes "essentialist" appeals to what is "natural". Popularized by movements like materialist feminism, xenofeminism, and animal rights, it argues that social or biological conditions shouldn't be treated as fixed or unchangeable just because they are labeled "natural"


Non-naturalism (Meta-ethics): The philosophical doctrine that moral properties (like "goodness") exist but are distinct and cannot be reduced to empirical, scientific, or physical facts.


Essentialism is the view that objects have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity.[1] In early Western thought, Platonic idealism held that all things have such an "essence"—an "idea" or "form". In Categories, Aristotle similarly proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it, "make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing".[2] The contrary view—non-essentialism—denies the need to posit such an "essence". Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning. In the Parmenides dialogue, Plato depicts Socrates questioning the notion, suggesting that if we accept the idea that every beautiful thing or just action partakes of an essence to be beautiful or just, we must also accept the "existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt".[3]

Older social theories were often conceptually essentialist.[4] In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin.[5] The role and importance of essentialism in modern biology is still a matter of debate.[6] Beliefs which posit that social identities such as race, ethnicity, nationality, or gender are essential characteristics have been central to many discriminatory or extremist ideologies.[7] For instance, psychological essentialism is correlated with racial prejudice.[8][9] Essentialist views about race have also been shown to diminish empathy when dealing with members of another racial group.[10] In medical sciences, essentialism can lead to a reified view of identities, leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment.[11]

I am not all that well read in philosophy, but as I thought naturalism has existed in different formulations. It is a naturall deduction, no pun intended.

The p[problem with philosophy is that a term lie naturalism has no real fixed definition. I don't think naturalism directly infers determinism, which itself has no fixed singular definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom