Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank
This is a very interesting point. A very sound argument can be made that NOTHING would or could exist, if an "infinite regress" of contingencies or conditions was a possibility. Lets take a cat for example.First, if the cat is dependent upon a finite number of conditions, then that means there is going to be a most fundamental condition (a last or terminating condition) in the series of conditions that the cat depends upon for its existence. For example, the cat is dependent upon the existence of its cells, which in turn are dependent upon amino acids and proteins, the amino acids and proteins depend on the existence of molecules, the molecules depend upon atoms, the atoms depend upon protons, the protons depend upon quarks, and so forth. With such a series, the quark (or something more fundamental) would be the terminating condition that the cat depends upon for its existence. Now, if the series regresses infinitely to more and more fundamental conditions that have the same existential status as the previous conditions, then the search for the fulfillment of conditions would go on endlessly. But if the search for the fulfillment of conditions would go on endlessly, then every hypothetical conditioned reality in the series would never have its conditions fulfilled and thus would never come into existence.   ?? |
I believe it is our inability to grasp the concept of infinity that stumps us.
Everything we know and experience is "contingent" and shaped by our interaction with the finite. Both the "bottom up scientific" approach and the "top down religious" one have built in limitations of how we look at things.
It may be as the religious mystics who tried to report from alternate states of consciousness,
beyond all words.
The bottom up scientific view, is more objective in not jumping to conclusions. But tends to limit the "holistic". The top down religious approach can draw on more intuitive avenues. But extends intuition into assumptions frequently proven factually wrong.
I prefer Albert Einstein's mix of materialism and spirituality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...noza's_God
Einstein had explored the idea that humans could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in George Sylvester Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great (1930), Einstein responded to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist. He explained:
Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
------------------------------------------
I agree with most of this, but the Hindu vedantic philosophers also considered non-dualistic philosophy
Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hindu philosophy, is an appropach o spiritual realization in Indian tradition. The term Advaita refers to its idea that the true self, Atman, is the same as the highest "metaphysical" reality of the universe, Brahman. However, not separating Brahman, Atman, and material things into distinct components. Or contingencies.
As a tree contains all it's components. We divide it up into the trunk, branches, and leafs. An adequate analysis but frequently losing the what connects it all up.
We cannot help NOT seeing the parts and the whole simultaneously
