tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post8204899847217708051..comments2024-03-14T03:14:22.144-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: What's Wrong With the Cosmos?TheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-62397663546652757222014-04-15T06:50:02.176-04:002014-04-15T06:50:02.176-04:00Thank you for explaining your understanding of the...<i>Thank you for explaining your understanding of the history of the 1277 condemnations.</i><br /><br />You are welcome.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-78846763402994403422014-04-15T06:49:20.090-04:002014-04-15T06:49:20.090-04:00ego: I said that it could have no counterintuitive...ego: I said that it could have no counterintuitive axioms.<br /><br />tu: Again, I see no reason for this to be true.<br /><br />rursus ego: Are you really and truly sure you are not confusing rational conclusion with axiom?<br /><br />I mean, I can see how non-flat earth can seem as counterintuitive to some who have not seen ships approach harbour or not made trips around the world (or part of trip with traditional knowledge of other part). I can see how Heliocentrism can seem as a correct conclusion, particularly to atheists.<br /><br />But I cannot see how either Heliocentrism (which I refuse) or Globe formed Earth (which I accept) could be any such thing as an axiom rather than a conclusion.<br /><br /><i>Philosophical systems are a wedding of grammar to initial statements of knowledge. Since we can never absolutely guarantee the truth of an axiom, nor the reliability of the grammar, we can never guarantee the truth of the system.</i><br /><br />Are you glossing over the difference absolute guarantee and lack of any reasonable doubt?<br /><br />I think you are.<br /><br />I also think you are wrong about relation of cosmos to axioms.<br /><br /><i>I don't know that it is unintuitive, only that it is far too complex for our models to simplify correctly.</i><br /><br />An axiom is NOT a simplification of the cosmos. It is one strand that is simple and which is being used as an ariadnes thread among other strands that together form a complexity.<br /><br />A philosophical system is also NOT a simplification of the cosmos, it is a collection of truths about it, except insofar as it is exclusive of truths outside (not contradicting, but simply outside) the system.<br /><br />You find Thomism a very wanting model of reality.<br /><br />I find Thomism a very good collection of truths about it.<br /><br />ego: Second it would - precisely as I am showing, if not to you at least hopefully to others that Thomism is - be able to understand the salient error of each erroneous philosophy.<br /><br />tu: I agree that Thomism can identify points with which Thomism disagrees.<br /><br />ego : But perhaps not points that are erroneous as such, eh? Do you mean "any such points at all" or do you mean "all points it would itself consider as erroneous"?<br /><br />The second would only amount to Thomism being erroneous. The first would amount to Thomism being miraculously the opposite of infallible, miraculously always wrong.<br /><br />tu: I mean that we can only trust the judgment of Thomism to the degree that Thomism itself is a good model of reality, and I find Thomism very wanting as a model of reality.<br /><br />rursus nunc ego: You avoided the question whether Thomism at least on the points where it is right can identify wrong philosophies as wrong and on what point of reasoning they went wrong?<br /><br />It is something which I can accord to partially erroneous philosophies (at least occasionally).<br /><br />However, I do not agree with your assessment of Thomistic statements of reality (or their status as constituting together a model of it).Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-54050116899882960032014-04-09T15:20:55.826-04:002014-04-09T15:20:55.826-04:00Hans-Georg Lundahl,
Er, no.
Philosophical system...Hans-Georg Lundahl,<br /><br /><i>Er, no.<br /><br />Philosophical systems are not comparable to grammars rather than to cognitive content.</i><br /><br />Of course not, nor was that a result of my statement. Philosophical systems are a wedding of grammar to initial statements of knowledge. Since we can never absolutely guarantee the truth of an axiom, nor the reliability of the grammar, we can never guarantee the truth of the system.<br /><br /><i>I said that it could have no counterintuitive axioms. </i><br /><br />Again, I see no reason for this to be true.<br /><br /><i>But apart from that, your general idea, of universe not being intuitive. That would explain why you assume all philosophies to be wrong.</i><br /><br />I don't know that it is unintuitive, only that it is far too complex for our models to simplify correctly.<br /><br /><i>But perhaps not points that are erroneous as such, eh? Do you mean "any such points at all" or do you mean "all points it would itself consider as erroneous"?</i><br /><br />I mean that we can only trust the judgment of Thomism to the degree that Thomism itself is a good model of reality, and I find Thomism very wanting as a model of reality.<br /><br />Thank you for explaining your understanding of the history of the 1277 condemnations.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-42687788705794582482014-04-09T04:06:27.241-04:002014-04-09T04:06:27.241-04:00Now, discussing a theoretical possibility was NEVE...<i>Now, discussing a theoretical possibility was NEVER heretical. What could be heretical or orthodox or within orthodoxy but not guaranteed by it was affirming something as true, including about factual possibilities and impossibilities.</i><br /><br />This remains true to this day, unless Holy Church has subreptitiously changed its discipline on the matter.<br /><br />However, it has happened that the Church has forbidden discussion on certain topics, like at one time between Dominicans and Jesuits. However, this was not equivalent to either position being declared heretical.<br /><br />Such a ban on discussions, for the sake of peace, have an illboding start. Honorius forbade discussion about Monotheletism. When the next council condemned Monotheletism Honorius was reckoned culpable of impeding its refutation thus of favouring it by precisely the ban on polemics.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-76084629048543526732014-04-09T04:01:33.852-04:002014-04-09T04:01:33.852-04:00My admittedly shallow understanding is that 1277 c...<i>My admittedly shallow understanding is that 1277 condemnations said it could not be heretical to discuss the existence of many worlds, but that these condemnations were later annulled, and that specifically the it could have heretical to discuss other worlds, after that annullment. Also, these condemnations did not propose a positive view, just that the discussion should be allowed. Is that inaccurate?</i><br /><br />Somewhat.<br /><br />First of all, the condemned thesis is not "it is heretical to discuss the factual existance of other worlds". The condemned thesis is "Quod causa prima non posset plures mundos facere."<br /><br />That "the first cause" - which Orthodoxy identifies with God - "were not able to create more than only one world." Or "several worlds". It is N°34 in the original list and it is N° 9 in the sorted list under the chapter "errors about God":<br /><br /><a href="http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/collectio-errorum-in-anglia-et-parisius.html" rel="nofollow">En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Capitulum VI ... Et primoordinantur qui sunt de deo, scilicet<br />http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/collectio-errorum-in-anglia-et-parisius.html</a><br /><br />Now, discussing a theoretical possibility was NEVER heretical. What could be heretical or orthodox or within orthodoxy but not guaranteed by it was affirming something as true, including about factual possibilities and impossibilities.<br /><br />The 1276 never dealt with the question whether there are more than one world.<br /><br />They were not revoked per se either.*<br /><br /><i>Redoutant cette dérive fidéiste qui s'était amorcée suite à l'intervention de Tempier, le pape Jean XXII allait réhabiliter la doctrine thomiste par la canonisation, en 1323, de Thomas d'Aquin, suivie, deux années plus tard, de la levée, par Etienne Bourret, de tout interdit que cette doctrine avait pu encourir de par la condamnation de 1277, comme il a été dit ci-dessus.</i><br /><br />As to "Redoutant cette dérive fidéiste" that is a Modern Scholar's analysis. But as to Stephen III Bourret of Paris lifting any interdict which Thomism could have incurred through the condemnations of 1276, that is undisputable fact.<br /><br />This has been blown up into a wholesale scrapping of 1276. Not so.<br /><br />There had been a rumour that St Thomas Aquinas was outside the limits of Bishop Tempier's Orthodoxy. Then comes this rehabilitation of St Thomas Aquinas. But apart from this, there is no scrapping of the condemnations as such.<br /><br />In other words, taking into account both acts of the Magisterium of Paris, Stephen II Tempier and Stephen III Bourret, a Catholic in Paris is on any point free to agree with either Tempier or Aquinas when they differ, if they do at any point, and not free to brave the condemnations on any point where Aquinas does not show the way very directly.<br /><br /><a href="http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html" rel="nofollow">En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes<br />http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-57728798003351709572014-04-09T03:41:00.741-04:002014-04-09T03:41:00.741-04:00Every philosophical system is true as far as it go...<i>Every philosophical system is true as far as it goes, because the only place a formal system can go is formal knowledge.</i><br /><br />Er, no.<br /><br />Philosophical systems are not comparable to grammars rather than to cognitive content.<br /><br /><i>This standard assume the universe would be intuitive, and that everyone's intuitions regarding it will be the same. I see no reason for either to be true.</i><br /><br />I said that it could have no counterintuitive axioms. Not that it could not have any seemingly at least counterintuitive conclusions. "Parallel lines always meet" would be an example of a counterintuitive axiom, if what is meant are straight lines.<br /><br />But apart from that, your general idea, of universe not being intuitive. That would explain why you assume all philosophies to be wrong.<br /><br />Of course, that is a conclusion from Atheism in any of its forms. Precisely as of Gnosticism. If the true Origin and Upholder of your life and reason is either not able or not willing to give you what it takes to intuitively grasp first truths and to go on rationally from there, then there can be no truth.<br /><br />Do you know for a true statement that this is so?<br /><br /><i>I agree that Thomism can identify points with which Thomism disagrees.</i><br /><br />But perhaps not points that are erroneous as such, eh? Do you mean "any such points at all" or do you mean "all points it would itself consider as erroneous"?<br /><br />The second would only amount to Thomism being erroneous. The first would amount to Thomism being miraculously the opposite of infallible, miraculously always wrong.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-83522862355861811182014-04-08T12:23:53.587-04:002014-04-08T12:23:53.587-04:00On basis, AS SAID, of Bruno being found guilty of ...<i>On basis, AS SAID, of Bruno being found guilty of Polytheism and Pantheism. And on basis of that, as far as upholders of universes being concerned, being consistent with both a non-Geocentric take on Prima Via and with an Infinite Creator having a supposed obligation to create an infinite universe.</i><br /><br />OK. I will not try to persuade you otherwise, then.<br /><br /><i>Do you Dawkins is free to reject a necessary being that you hold to be such - a universe with a net energy of zero, or conservation of energy-mass - or do you mean you are yourself free to reject the proposition these are necessary.</i><br /><br />I reject that there is any necessary being, at all. However, I'm not inclined to engage in a sustained discussion on that in this comment thread.<br /><br /><i>Having perfect understanding is ONE thing, having a system which is completely true AS FAR AS IT GOES is another thing. Thus, a philosophy has no need of being untrue because it has a human author for its formulation.</i><br /><br />Every philosophical system is true as far as it goes, because the only place a formal system can go is formal knowledge.<br /><br /><i>First off, it would contain no unnecessary or counterintuitive axioms. </i><br /><br />This standard assume the universe would be intuitive, and that everyone's intuitions regarding it will be the same. I see no reason for either to be true.<br /><br /><i>Second it would - precisely as I am showing, if not to you at least hopefully to others that Thomism is - be able to understand the salient error of each erroneous philosophy.</i><br /><br />I agree that Thomism can identify points with which Thomism disagrees.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-21359165826054353872014-04-08T07:47:46.934-04:002014-04-08T07:47:46.934-04:00Yesterday you repeated your question whether I was...Yesterday you repeated your question whether I was a geocentrist. But I had already answered it and defended my position:<br /><br /><i>I suppose I could have said that "given the conservation of mass-energy in large-scale phenomena, we know that geocentrism is false".</i><br /><br />St Thomas did not subscribe to conservation of mass-energy in marge scale or other phenomena, since he was not identifying the NECESSARY BEING with mass-energy, but with God.<br /><br /><i>If you are willing to postulate an influx of energy that keeps the sun circling a stationary earth, such energy having no other detectable effect, of course you can still proclaim geocentrism.</i><br /><br />Geocentrism is major proof that God is, as UPHOLDER of the Universe, providing the "influx of energy" that makes not just Sun but indeed All Universe circle around a stationary earth each day.<br /><br />And the detection of the influx is by the phenomena of day and night.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-43318110543137564382014-04-08T07:45:24.399-04:002014-04-08T07:45:24.399-04:00All philosophies are untrue; some are just better ...<i>All philosophies are untrue; some are just better models than others. No human has perfect understanding.</i><br /><br />Having perfect understanding is ONE thing, having a system which is completely true AS FAR AS IT GOES is another thing. Thus, a philosophy has no need of being untrue because it has a human author for its formulation.<br /><br /><i>Unfortunately, even if such a true system existed, you would have no reliable way to distinguish it from the false ones.</i><br /><br />First off, it would contain no unnecessary or counterintuitive axioms. Second it would - precisely as I am showing, if not to you at least hopefully to others that Thomism is - be able to understand the salient error of each erroneous philosophy.<br /><br /><i>I'm sure, but your consideration is not sufficient reason for me to adopt that position.</i><br /><br />I did not ask you to take my consideration as a reason for you to adopt it. I was asking you to consider I so considered it and that therefore your previous coment was to me pointless.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-90438916628470239482014-04-08T07:40:50.073-04:002014-04-08T07:40:50.073-04:00Are you, personally, a geocentrist?
Yes.
On what...<i>Are you, personally, a geocentrist?</i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br /><i>On what basis?</i><br /><br />On basis, AS SAID, of Bruno being found guilty of Polytheism and Pantheism. And on basis of that, as far as upholder<i>s</i> of universe<i>s</i> being concerned, being consistent with both a non-Geocentric take on Prima Via and with an Infinite Creator having a supposed obligation to create an infinite universe.<br /><br />For next one, I resume part of dialogue:<br /><br />Have you ever heard phrases like "energy can never be created and never be destroyed"?<br /><br /><i>Sure, but even that does not fully apply on the quantum level. Further, the net energy of the current universe seems to be zero, to my understanding. So, that means by your reasoning, it can all be contingent.</i><br /><br />In that case you seem to believe in a net energy as zero as the necessary being.<br /><br /><i>So, it's impossible to reject a necessary being? I disagree.</i><br /><br />Do you Dawkins is free to reject a necessary being that you hold to be such - a universe with a net energy of zero, or conservation of energy-mass - or do you mean you are yourself free to reject the proposition these are necessary.<br /><br />I also reject the proposition that either a net energy of zero or a conservation of mass-energy are necessary. But that is because I attribute necessary being to God.<br /><br />What you seem to do is attributing the predicate to either a net energy of zero or a conservation of mass-energy, all the while denying doing so because you want to verbally deny the concept that someone else, namely St Thomas, applies to something else, namely a personal God.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-14939393492539517172014-04-07T13:21:31.926-04:002014-04-07T13:21:31.926-04:00An axiom that is not true gives a philosophy that ...<i>An axiom that is not true gives a philosophy that is not true.</i><br /><br />All philosophies are untrue; some are just better models than others. No human has perfect understanding.<br /><br /><i>On the contrary, a true philosophical system can productively understand all the false ones.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, even if such a true system existed, you would have no reliable way to distinguish it from the false ones.<br /><br /><i>I do not consider it as "the system Aquinas erected", but as a true philosophy which he attentively contemplated.</i><br /><br />I'm sure, but your consideration is not sufficient reason for me to adopt that position.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-46672869860587466572014-04-07T13:17:18.659-04:002014-04-07T13:17:18.659-04:00Hans-Georg Lundahl,
You can perhaps as easily see...Hans-Georg Lundahl,<br /><br /><i>You can perhaps as easily see now how restating things according to Heliocentrism would radically alter the philosophical concept of God, now that I spell it out?</i><br /><br />Are you, personally, a geocentrist? If not, has that caused a deviation from Aquinas in your concept of God? If not, then why should I accept this position?<br /><br /><i> I do not think they would prove it, but I think Bruno thought they proved it.</i><br /><br />On what basis?<br /><br /><i>In that case you seem to believe in a net energy as zero as the necessary being.</i><br /><br />So, it's impossible to reject a necessary being? I disagree.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-82800677263375768782014-04-04T10:50:14.578-04:002014-04-04T10:50:14.578-04:00Philosophical systems that have different axioms w...<i>Philosophical systems that have different axioms will result in different positions,</i><br /><br />An axiom that is not true gives a philosophy that is not true.<br /><br /><i>and there is very little that system A can productively say about system B.</i><br /><br />On the contrary, a true philosophical system can productively understand all the false ones.<br /><br /><i>If you were to say that Bruno can only be understood historically or culturally with an understanding of Aquinas, I agree.</i><br /><br />We agree on one thing.<br /><br /><i>That does not mean that the system Aquinas erected has a specific comment it can make on the system of Bruno.</i><br /><br />I do not consider it as "the system Aquinas erected", but as a true philosophy which he attentively contemplated.<br /><br />And as such, according to previous, it was very apt to make specific comments about each and any false system.<br /><br />Indeed, St Thomas took a keen interest of actually doing so, whenever relevant to the subject.<br /><br />The pre-Socratics were wrong on this, Plato was right on that but wrong on that, Averroës is getting Aristotle at his worst in this question, Avicenna makes such a mistake.<br /><br />THAT is St Thomas Aquinas for you.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-59270890182999602832014-04-04T10:44:51.034-04:002014-04-04T10:44:51.034-04:00Sure, but even that does not fully apply on the qu...<i>Sure, but even that does not fully apply on the quantum level. Further, the net energy of the current universe seems to be zero, to my understanding. So, that means by your reasoning, it can all be contingent.</i><br /><br />In that case you seem to believe in a net energy as zero as the necessary being.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-43010231391757050722014-04-04T10:43:16.730-04:002014-04-04T10:43:16.730-04:00As I indicated, on not noticing the difference bet...<i>As I indicated, on not noticing the difference between "sounds similar to" and actually claiming an instance of a fallacy, and then going into a lecture about how the fallacy itself did not apply.</i><br /><br />I suppose you refer to this passage:<br /><br />On the level of SUGGESTING as opposed to IMPLYING there are no such things as fallacies. Fallacies are concerned with perceiving an implication where there is only a suggestion.<br /><br />Now, I think Bruno actually did fall for that fallacy.<br /><br />Let me spell this out, so there is no mistake about how I understand things:<br /><br />I and Bruno agree that Heliocentrism and Plurality of Cosmoi suggest a plurality of gods-as-upholders-of-each-universe. I do not think they would prove it, but I think Bruno thought they proved it.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-88903278257434524282014-04-04T10:39:55.110-04:002014-04-04T10:39:55.110-04:00then it would seem you agree he did not think of d...<i>then it would seem you agree he did not think of different gods creating each world.</i><br /><br />I am not sure whether Bruno would have agreed that the universes - we would say solar systems - were CREATED by several different Gods.<br /><br />St Thomas' argument about oneness of God since oneness of Universe moving around earth was more of an argument for oneness of God as UPHOLDER of the Universe.<br /><br />When it comes to Bruno's Pantheism/Polytheism I think this would apply under and after the one creator.<br /><br /><i>I suppose I could have said that "given the conservation of mass-energy in large-scale phenomena, we know that geocentrism is false".</i><br /><br />St Thomas did not subscribe to conservation of mass-energy in marge scale or other phenomena, since he was not identifying the NECESSARY BEING with mass-energy, but with God.<br /><br /><i>If you are willing to postulate an influx of energy that keeps the sun circling a stationary earth, such energy having no other detectable effect, of course you can still proclaim geocentrism.</i><br /><br />Geocentrism is major proof that God is, as UPHOLDER of the Universe, providing the "influx of energy" that makes not just Sun but indeed All Universe circle around a stationary earth each day.<br /><br />And the detection of the influx is by the phenomena of day and night.<br /><br />That is the easiest way of stating Prima Via.<br /><br />You can perhaps as easily see now how restating things according to Heliocentrism would radically alter the philosophical concept of God, now that I spell it out?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-28158484619034761582014-04-03T14:39:58.248-04:002014-04-03T14:39:58.248-04:00Sophia's Favorite/TheOFloinn,
When I said, &q...Sophia's Favorite/TheOFloinn,<br /><br />When I said, "I agree the obvious inference is incorrect, but the statements are not" did that come across as garbled on your screens in some fashion? At any point in this thread, have I ever denied that this inference was to be had, and the inference was incorrect? Really, the two of you posting as if I had not said this, and trying to correct me to a position I had acknowledged days ago, would be amusing if it did not signal such a high degree of arrogance and a low degree of interest in the exchange of ideas.<br /><br /><br />Sophia's Favorite<br /><br />For my part, I look forward to you responding to the entire content of posts, in context, rather than just skim a sentence or two and ignore the parts you find inconvenient.<br /><br /><br />TheOFloinn,<br /><br />Deriving ill intent from inference can be a tricky business, and one I'd wager you engage more cautiously when the inference comes from a source you support.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-45025559699707032832014-04-02T17:49:30.211-04:002014-04-02T17:49:30.211-04:00It's only that he does not consider that the i...It's only that he does not consider that the intended communication was a <i>combination</i> of narration and visuals. Certainly, defensive reactions by the show-runners to the criticisms of historians have made it clear. In the post-Modern age, visual imagery will become more and more important and verbal less-and-less so. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-25391948672809228702014-04-02T17:39:09.745-04:002014-04-02T17:39:09.745-04:00Well, now you're moving the goalposts, since b...Well, now you're moving the goalposts, since before you said that the Renaissance Mathematicus didn't list any errors, and now you're saying that the errors it listed didn't actually occur in the Cosmos episode. If you <i>meant</i> the second thing, you should probably <i>say</i> the second thing—rather than something else. Are you deliberately disingenuous, or just incompetent at communicating?<br /><br />And for my part, I look forward to you actually grasping that <i>deliberate</i> implications, inferred by essentially all recipients of a message—as for instance that Bruno's reading of banned books included Lucretius, which <i>every single person</i> watching the episode is supposed to take as the meaning of the passage—is the same as explicit statement. Quite honestly, you've crossed the line between "give them the benefit of the doubt" and "Hey Brutus, funny thing, just before I turned around, somebody stabbed me, did you see where he went?" They piss on your leg and <i>you</i> insist to all onlookers that it's actually raining.<br /><br />You are either in some kind of weird reverse-paranoid delusional denial, or suffer from one of those mental disorders where only explicit, literal statements are understood. Either way, arguing with you is fruitless, since you deny the known rules of normal human communication (entirely to suit one side of this debate, and not the other, so there is <i>another</i> possible explanation—can you grasp <i>that</i> deliberate implication?).Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-74176917531621308522014-04-01T13:27:39.434-04:002014-04-01T13:27:39.434-04:00Sophia's Favorite,
i) Again, Cosmos did not ...Sophia's Favorite,<br /><br />i) Again, Cosmos did not claim Lucretius' work was banned. They said Bruno read banned books (he did) and the he read Lucretius (he did). I agree the obvious inference is incorrect, but the statements are not.<br /><br />ii) Again, it's a statement not reflected in the Cosmos broadcast.<br /><br />Yes, I read the post, and commented there, as well. <br /><br />However, I do look forward to you actually demonstrating the falsehood of something I said. Perhaps you can find the Cosmos clip that says Lucretius was banned? I'll wait more than 4 seconds.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-77326887128812552472014-03-31T19:17:15.504-04:002014-03-31T19:17:15.504-04:00i) "The first problem here is that Lucretius’...i) "The first problem here is that Lucretius’ work was not 'banned by the Church' at all and no-one needed to hide it under their floor."<br /><br />That looks like a statement to me.<br /><br />ii) "This, of course, makes for a much better parable than the truth – Lucretius’ work wasn’t 'banned by the Church' and Bruno actually ran away from his religious house and wasn’t thrown out for reading naughty books."<br /><br />That also looks like a statement, and it also re-states (i).<br /><br />Tell me, did you even <i>read</i> the Renaissance Mathematicus post? I'm guessing not. (If you're going to argue about what is or isn't said by a piece of text on the Internet, you probably want to learn to use your browser's "find" function, to make sure you don't say things whose falsehood is demonstrable in 4 seconds flat.)Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-355295263750825422014-03-31T13:37:12.358-04:002014-03-31T13:37:12.358-04:00Hans-Georg Lundahl,
Since you are aware of Bruno&...Hans-Georg Lundahl,<br /><br />Since you are aware of Bruno's argument regarding an Infinite Creator, then it would seem you agree he did not think of different gods creating each world. I am glad we reached agreement there.<br /><br />I suppose I could have said that "given the conservation of mass-energy in large-scale phenomena, we know that geocentrism is false". If you are willing to postulate an influx of energy that keeps the sun circling a stationary earth, such energy having no other detectable effect, of course you can still proclaim geocentrism. However, I don't feel remiss for saying we know geocentrism is false.<br /><br /><i>Where did I ever do so?</i><br /><br />As I indicated, on not noticing the difference between "sounds similar to" and actually claiming an instance of a fallacy, and then going into a lecture about how the fallacy itself did not apply.<br /><br /><i>Have you ever heard phrases like "energy can never be created and never be destroyed"?</i><br /><br />Sure, but even that does not fully apply on the quantum level. Further, the net energy of the current universe seems to be zero, to my understanding. So, that means by your reasoning, it can all be contingent.<br /><br /><i>And being the argument it is means it is relevant to the arguments of Bruno being what they are (as opposed to their quality of being in his writings and being put in his words).</i><br /><br />I agree. <br /><br />Philosophical systems that have different axioms will result in different positions, and there is very little that system A can productively say about system B. If you were to say that Bruno can only be understood historically or culturally with an understanding of Aquinas, I agree. That does not mean that the system Aquinas erected has a specific comment it can make on the system of Bruno.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-52220202812787321152014-03-31T13:18:35.367-04:002014-03-31T13:18:35.367-04:00i) The uninformed viewer might have inferred this,...i) The uninformed viewer might have inferred this, but it was not stated.<br />ii) Same.<br />iii) It was certainly claimed that the idea of a certerless cosmos was among the books he had read<br />iv) That multiple worlds made the list of eight charges against Bruno undercuts your position significantly. If not formally heretical, the view seems to have been treated as such.<br /><br />So yes, you should have pointed out some actual errors. Or something.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-17623845940673379862014-03-31T07:48:16.864-04:002014-03-31T07:48:16.864-04:00What, you mean apart from (i) Lucretius wasn't...What, you mean apart from (i) Lucretius wasn't "banned by the Church", (ii) Bruno wasn't kicked out of his friary for reading "banned books", he ran away, (iii) he didn't come up with his centreless cosmos of many worlds on his own, he got that from Cusanus and (iv) neither heliocentrism nor multiple worlds were heretical in the 1590s? So apart from pointing out all those errors, yes I should have pointed out some errors. Or something.Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-2155936257268621082014-03-29T11:15:55.132-04:002014-03-29T11:15:55.132-04:00The Renaissance Mathematicus : Cartoons and Fables...<a href="https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/cartoons-and-fables-how-cosmos-got-the-story-of-bruno-wrong/" rel="nofollow">The Renaissance Mathematicus : Cartoons and Fables – How Cosmos Got the Story of Bruno Wrong<br />https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/cartoons-and-fables-how-cosmos-got-the-story-of-bruno-wrong/</a>Hans-Georg Lundahlhttp://ppt.li/k8noreply@blogger.com