主播大秀

Michael wrote
Though the universe is depicted in models, it is fitting that its purpose remains hidden;

Michael
You almost appear to be suggesting that if the mystery of the universe was explained you would be dissapointed and there would be something missing in your life?

Michael wrote
For three score and four years with full measure of devotion I have lived within the Christian tradition. Christianity abides germane through my growth in understanding the authority of its metaphorical insights.

Michael
Would you deny that if you had been brought up in the Hindu tradition you would have been just as happy with its metaphors etc ?

Michael

You really have a gentle spirit.

PB

Re 1: Alan wrote

a) "You almost appear to be suggesting that if the mystery of the universe was explained you would be dissapointed and there would be something missing in your life?

Not at all. I just doubt that it will be explained in our lifetimes. Do you not agree?

b) Would you deny that if you had been brought up in the Hindu tradition you would have been just as happy with its metaphors etc ?

Probably, that's what I said in the statement with respect to other faith traditions.

Regards,
Michael

Re 2:

Thanks PB

Michael

Re: John Wright
John, having read what you have written on various topics I am disappointed in your offering. I was waiting to see some philosophical insights brought forth which you have articulated so beautifully in other threads!

Will, can John try again?

Re: Michael N. Hull
I give my vote to this one based on depth of thought, stylistic balance, integration of ideas, and preciseness of prose. Positive and uplifting! I see a lot of your philosophical readings coming through and can even identify those you seem to regard highly.

Re: Alan Watson
Was quite a good statement about the environment and your love of it but unfortunately lost my vote with 鈥淲e have to beware the cornered holy dog鈥�. Everything else was positive until you let a bogeyman into your thought.

Re: PB
Definitely my second place vote. A very profound and personal statement of what Christianity means to you PB. The only reason I didn鈥檛 put you above Hull is that your statement was more monochromatic than his but I loved the style, emotional content, and I saw you as a person in the statement.

Will, can there be a tie? If so I declare a tie!

Re: George Jelliss
A bit bland for me. George, who you are did not come through in this statement. But it was straightforward and concise. Came over, however, like something you would have written in a text book.

Re: Mark L. Fischer
Last place in my opinion but could well get the prize since it is based on the number of posts under each statement and this one should garner many mindless comments.

Re: The Christian Hippy
This gets my third place vote. A very interesting twist on Christmas and well expressed. Made me think.

Re: Dubya:
Definitely got the sense of who you are and what you believe. Having read your other posts I think you could have really polished this up into an outstanding credo. But nevertheless I learned about you and there was a certain poetic yearning that came out at the end. Gets my fourth place vote.

Congratulations to all who accepted the challenge.

I didn鈥檛 participate so all of the above can be totally disregarded.

Peace,
Maureen.

Michael, I'm curious about what brought you to the conclusion that the universe exists for a purpose?

In post 5 Mark asked:

鈥淢ichael, I'm curious about what brought you to the conclusion that the universe exists for a purpose?鈥�

First a quote:

鈥淧urpose is similar to teleology, the idea that a final goal is implicit in all living organisms. Until the modern age, philosophy followed Aristotle鈥檚 depiction of a teleological cosmos in which all things had a final purpose (namely, to realize their implicit perfection). Perhaps most modern philosophers of science have reversed the idea of purpose inherent in nature; they do not consider an eye explicable as being "in order to see"; instead, cause-and-effect processes are credited with bringing about the eye organ, which allows us to see. The difference is between a cause as pushing from behind (movements of billiard balls) and a cause as pulling from within (movement of a growing plant). With teleology (purpose) matter is fulfilling some aim from within.鈥�

Let me speak from a scientific perspective (model) and not from the philosophical perspective (metaphor).

I have not 'concluded' that the universe has a purpose but I am indeed working with that belief.

If I put my scientist hat on and set out using 鈥榤odels鈥� with a 鈥榩urpose鈥� of trying to figure out what the universe 鈥榠s鈥� then I believe (following Dawkins鈥� reasoning in The God Delusion) that since I am an integral small 鈥榖it鈥� of the universe that I am studying 鈥� a sort of biological machine if you wish 鈥� and since I am doing my research 鈥榩urposely鈥� I am free to make as an initial assumption that the universe has 鈥榩urpose鈥�.

My research as a scientist may prove that assumption wrong but it is the place I would prefer to start.

Regards,
Michael

Maureen;
You really disappoint me. First of all you did not answer the question I posed in my other posting to you about whether or not you felt my metaphor of cockroaches for creationists was or wasn't valid in light of your earlier statement that metaphors have equal validity with scientific models.

Secondly, you did not post any entry of your own while you chastized me when you thought I would not submit one.

And thirdly, you did not even bother to comment on my submittal below my own posting but on someone elses because you were too lazy to care enough to give each entrant a response in the appropriate spot.

As for your judgement and penchant for judgement, I am certain that when I reach the Pearly Gates of heaven, I will see you sitting right next to Saint Peter telling him exactly what he must do. And I am sure that he will have a look on his face telling me that he wishes he was back on earth so that he could file for divorce.

Maureen

I agree with you entirely. Michael's is without doubt the best of bit of writing in the contributions.

I was always a substance above style person, but I admire people who can do both.

PB

Re 8:

Thanks PB. What is surprising to me however that with all the 'brain power' I have seen in these threads there is surprisingly little comment when one gets down to the specifics of the statements (except for one).

Regards,
Michael

Sounds very pseudo to me michael mate

# 11 frankie wrote:

"Sounds very pseudo to me michael mate"

Thank you, frankie mate.

Michael

Hello! Michael

A blessed New Year to you!

Your contribution is far too ambiguous in the spiritual sense for my liking, possible reason being the books that we read. But it does reflect the substance and belief of your true spirit and what you sincerely believe and that is what matters, what you hold deep within your spirit, and no one can take that away from you.

In the words of Dr Ian Paisley, As a man is known by the company he keeps so a speaker is known by the books which he reads.

God bless

Billy Corr

Re 13 Billy Corr wrote:

"In the words of Dr Ian Paisley, As a man is known by the company he keeps so a speaker is known by the books which he reads."

Billy:

A bit of history. Back in 1964 I was driving my A35 up the Woodstock Road when I hit a pedestrian who was running across the road dodging traffic. Can you imagine my amazement when I got the car stopped and the guy who was spralled across the bonnet (hood) peering through the windshield at me was none other that Ian himself.

He brushed himself off and departed without a word.

I often wonder if I had been going a couple of miles faster would I have changed the course of Irish history?

Regards,
Michael

Billy, a further comment re Ian Paisley and the subject of reading books:

Are you familiar with Jeanette Winterson?

Recently she was on 鈥淔aith and Reason鈥� with Bill Moyers and talked about growing up in poverty in a fundamentalist Pentecostal evangelist household. She went to Oxford to study mythology and now writes numerous books with a basic theme of 鈥淲hy myths still matter鈥�. She published her first book at age 23 entitled 鈥極ranges are not the only Fruit鈥�.

Her mother permitted only 6 books in the house as she was growing up, one was the bible and the other five were about the bible Jeanette was made to memorize the bible by heart 鈥� it was her mother鈥檚 understanding that if you believed in Creationism and Armageddon everything in the middle was taken care of.

As Jeanette became older and was able to buy books she would sneak them into the house and hide them under her mattress. Unfortunately, her mother noticing some problem with the bed discovered several hundred books hidden there and the first one she picked up was 'Women in Love' by D H Lawrence.

The books were promptly burned and her mother admonished her saying:

鈥淛eanette, the trouble with a book is that you never know what鈥檚 in it until it is too late鈥�.

Jeanette understood as she got older that she was a lesbian and when her mother found out she ordered Jeanette to give up her girl friend or leave home. So Jeanette left home and as she was leaving on the final day her mother said:

鈥淛eanette, why be happy when you could be normal鈥�?

Regards,
Michael

Hilarious Michael,

Fits of laughter!

Ha Ha!

I just hope that my daughter has experienced the same openness of knowledge which you experienced in your early life at BRA, on this foundation, I hope my daughter has the same experiences at Belfast Royal Academy! So that she has a sound foundation for her life in the big bad world.

I am thankful that the principle is sound and is a Presbyterian Elder.

Best wishes
Billy

Re 16

Unfortunately, Billy, from what I understand the UK government has been moving to destroy the type of education that I was grateful to receive there. When I see what is offered in the American high school compared with what I was offered at the BRA it makes one wonder how the children here will ever compete in the global economy.

Fight every battle you can over there to keep the BRA and other similar schools healthy and strong.

Regards,
Michael

i hear that will went to BRA too ... show's how their standards have dropped! Just kidding will ... really!!

Creation Scientist:

I still get the OWL. I am amazed at the quality and quantity of the educational and extra curricular activities being offered today.

Here in the U.S. programs are being cut except of course for the football programs - they are sacred.

I've kept up a little with the changes that are being forced on schools like the BRA and it greatly saddens me as I'm sure it does Will.

I grew up in the mean streets of the Antrim and Cliftonville Roads heading one of the teenage gangs roaming the streets looking for trouble. Once I was accepted into the BRA things changed for the better fast and I turned my "Gallic" wars into a study of Latin.

Regards,
Michael

Re 6 Mark:

I surprised that you haven't taken me up on my 'model' and 'metaphor' parts of the statment.

Maybe I've convinced you :-)

Regards,
Michael

ps: Truth be told I'm just trying to goad you into taking off here so I can run up the number of posts and see what book Will is evangelising ;-)

Michael, you say: "I hold respect for, and tolerance of, all faith traditions and philosophical positions".

But this is impossible! Your mind must be a mess of contradictions, a dustbin of unorganised notions none of which you have thought about at any depth. Have you no respect for logic!

Re Post 21:

George:

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are Abrahamic religions. So if I say that I have respect for these faith traditions is it not logical to say that I am respecting Abraham?

Buddhism and Christianity have a lot in common. Consider this:

Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. "He who wants to be great must become the smallest of all." (Mark 9.35).

Buddha was born into a royal family amongst rich and extravagant circumstances. Yet he gave it up all and became a monk. "Whosoever exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14).

So has not Jesus himself indicated that other traditions should be valued?

I also hold respect for atheism (I consider it to be a religion because of the way its 'believers' evangelise it). As long as atheism is held honestly and atheists do unto others ... then the belief has no negative effects on me and can be 'held in respect'.

I hope this appears somewhat more logical.

May I ask if you do not respect other faith traditions in this way and if not why not?

Regards,
Michael

Michael, you appear to be using the word "respect" to mean the same as "tolerate". To me respect has to be earned. I'm prepared to tolerate (put up with) people with all sorts of strange beliefs. I occasionaly attend inter-faith groups for instance. But I can't have much respect for people who accept such strange beliefs uncritically, either because they were brought up with them or because they just want to believe they are true regardless of any evidence. The beliefs of different religions contradict each other in many ways. You may choose to ignore the differences and look only at the points where they agree, but in so doing you are wearing blinkers. Lastly atheism is not a religion, except in a legalistic sense. Anyway I'm a rationalist and only consequentially an atheist.

Hi Michael,

Your synopsis of your beliefs mirror most of mine, although stated in a much more eloquent and consise manner than I could manage.

I have found that my beliefs (outlook?) changed rather remarkably after I left Norn Iron for the "great white north". Western Canada is a very multi-cultural and inclusive society and many of each group's mores rub of on other (open minded) individuals.

My questions :- Have you, Michael, spent some years in a multi-cultural society and, if so, (2) do you feel the experience had any influence on your belief and. credo ??

Victor

In post 23 George Jelliss wrote:

鈥淢ichael, you appear to be using the word "respect" to mean the same as "tolerate". To me respect has to be earned. I'm prepared to tolerate (put up with) people with all sorts of strange beliefs鈥�.

Thank you for the comment, George.

I think the word 鈥榬espect鈥� goes a little further than just 鈥榯olerate鈥�. Respect has a sense of esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability. For example, I don鈥檛 agree with Richard Dawkins or Andy McIntosh but I respect both of them in this sense. I cannot for example 鈥榬espect鈥� a cheat though I may have to 鈥榯olerate鈥� that quality in a person.

George wrote:

鈥淎theism is not a religion, except in a legalistic sense. Anyway I'm a rationalist and only consequentially an atheist.鈥�

Atheism is a belief that 鈥楪ods鈥� do not exist. Therefore, in that sense it is a 鈥榬eligion鈥� if it is evangelized as a 鈥榖elief鈥�. I think what Dawkins does is evangelize atheism in the same way Ian Paisley evangelizes fundamentalist Christianity.

I am surprised that 鈥榓theists鈥� spend so much time 鈥榩reaching鈥� against religion instead of speaking about their alternative, positive world view.

I asked many young people in England what they 鈥榖elieved鈥�. After some red faces when I assured them that this was a simple philosophical question which they did not have to understand as religiously based, they usually told me that they 鈥榙idn鈥檛 believe in God鈥�.

Well, that is OK but then when one asks what do you believe in, there was generally no answer. Why is it that the secularists are unable or unwilling to articulate their world view?

Try my experiment for yourself!

Regards,
Michael

In post 24 Victor Ince wrote:

鈥淢y questions :- Have you, Michael, spent some years in a multi-cultural society and, if so, do you feel the experience had any influence on your belief and credo?鈥�

Yes I think it broadened my thinking somewhat in that I began to see many similarities between various philosophical positions. I also became much more sensitive to the dangers of fundamentalist thinking from whatever the source, i.e. 鈥榖elievers鈥�, 鈥榓theists鈥�, 鈥榙eterminists鈥� etc. etc. That why I am both an 鈥榓gnostic鈥� Christian AND an 鈥榓gnostic鈥� Scientist. I also began to see that we all have much more in common than what we have that divides us. If we concentrated on the positive and not on the negative the world would be far better off. I see a lot of 鈥榚xclusionary鈥� thinking and 鈥榚ither/or鈥� positions being taken and it usually comes from the 鈥榝undamentalists鈥� whatever their beliefs.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Michael

Not so fast michael . . . u CANT be a CHRISTIAN and and AGNOSTIC.

Re 27 Helen Hays wrote:

"Not so fast michael . . . u CANT be a CHRISTIAN and an AGNOSTIC."

Why not?

Can I not be a SCIENTIST and an AGNOSTIC too?

Cordially,
Michael

Helen:

I should perhaps define some terms for you on how I use the concept of 鈥榓gnosticism鈥�. These are the way that I use the terms and I accept that others may not hold to these definitions.

Agnosticism 鈥� This applies to all things on which man has not yet been able to run an experiment to prove or disprove.

Belief 鈥� Something about which one is agnostic. For example, one can believe that some horses like music.

Faith 鈥� A belief about which one claims not to be agnostic and that one 鈥榢nows鈥� is 鈥榯rue鈥�. For example, in the discipline of mathematics one has faith that 2+2 equals 4 i.e. one claims to 鈥榢now鈥� that this is 鈥榯rue鈥�. Many people have 鈥榝aith鈥� that God does not exist i.e. they claim to 鈥榢now鈥� that their鈥� belief鈥� is 鈥榯rue鈥�.

Reasoning 鈥� The process of relating ideas to reach a 鈥榖elief鈥� about which one is then agnostic. Proving a belief by experiment leads to the attainment of a 'truth' about which one is no longer agnostic. One then can use the term 鈥榝aith鈥�.

Scientist - One who develops new models to explain existing data, and who tests models by making measurements. An agnostic scientist is therefore one who believes that it is possible for any model to be proved false.

Truth 鈥� Something that is the same for everyone, everywhere, and for eternity.

Eternity 鈥� The moment of 鈥榥ow鈥� which is forever unchangeable.

If I may paraphrase Thomas Mann I would hold that 鈥� Models are descriptions of the way things might be, but never are.鈥�

What I mean by this we must be remain agnostic about our models because the 'thing' might 'be' that way but usually we find in the world of science that further information will come along and the model will be dropped in favor of a new one i.e. the model might be that way but it never is. Once we arrive in a state of complete knowledge about a 鈥榖elief鈥� in a model then we no longer have a model we have a 鈥榝act鈥�.

Do I believe in evolution? Yes and I am agnostic about it. But having said that it is an extremely strong belief that I hold about evolution.

Do I believe in God? Yes and I am agnostic about it. But having said that it is an extremely strong belief that I hold about God.

Hope this helps.

Michael

Agnostic christian - just silly. Why can't we avoid postmodern nonsense and maintain the meaning of terms. This is like calling yourself a square circle.

Re Post 29 Sarah Shields wrote:

"Agnostic christian - just silly."

Sarah: What do you think of the term 'agnostic scientist'?

Regards,
Michael

Michael wrote: "I am surprised that 鈥榓theists鈥� spend so much time 鈥榩reaching鈥� against religion instead of speaking about their alternative, positive world view."

I agree with you there. That's why I always call myself a rationalist and try to emphasise the positive side of my views, as I think I did in my credo.

Michael gave some definitions. I disagree on the folowing points:

"Belief 鈥� Something about which one is agnostic." No that's a Hypothesis. A belief is something you "believe in" in a positive sense, either because of evidence or because of faith.

"Faith 鈥� A belief about ... that one 鈥榢nows鈥� is 鈥榯rue鈥�." For emotional reasons, but have no proof or evidence to show that it it true. One could I suppose have "faith"
that 2+2 equals 4, but as a mathematician I would prefer to say that I know it is true, either by definition or by simple deduction from more basic axioms.

"Scientist - One who develops new models to explain existing data, and who tests models by making measurements." And by reasoning about them. Science is a combination
of reason and empiricism.

Your definition of "eternity" is a religious concept that makes no sense to me.

Re 32 George wrote

"Your definition of 'eternity' is a religious concept that makes no sense to me."

George:

The physical concept of 'eternity' is not clearly expressed in either the Old or the New Testaments so your comment with respect to Christianity and Judaism is not correct.

'Eternity' is not so much a 'religious' concept as a 'philosophical' or 'metaphorical' one.

Take for example these two definitions:

Eternal Time 鈥� The continuousness of time from the past to the future.

Eternity 鈥� The moment of 鈥榥ow鈥� which is forever unchangeable.

What I am trying to get at with these particular definitions is that 'Eternal Time' is a scientific concept while 'Eternity' is a metaphorical concept.

They are different. For example in science the concept of time has an arrow, a sense of motion i.e. time 'moves' from the past to the future.

The metaphorical usage of the word 'eternity' has no sense of 'movement' associated with it. It is a sense of time stopped, a sense of time stilled.

If I may requote Thomas Mann who said that "a metaphor is a description of the way things never were, but always are" we can understand that eternity defined as the continuousness of 'now' never 'is' but yet it always 'will be'.

Regards,
Michael

ps: Mark is now wondering what I have been smoking ;-)

Michael it seems that the cream has risen to the top!

Tony Benn the Christian Agnostic and Christian Socialist described himself as a 鈥淐hristian without God鈥�

Re 34:

Billy - I didn't get it but I have been out of the UK for so long that I remember little of Tony Benn.

Would he not be better described as a Christian Atheist i.e. one who follows the teachings of Jesus but does not accept the existence of a Divine Being?

Regards,
Michael

Follow up to Post 33:

George:

In a different forum someone wrote that they too had a problem with the reference to time. Their comment was that time is not continuous except in fairly local areas of the universe. As velocity increases, time slows down and ceases to 'be' around the speed of light. In fact if the big bang existed then time as we know it came into existence as matter slowed down. They concluded that perhaps eternity is the gap between the big bang and the big crunch, that is until the next big bang.

Again regardless of whether 'time' speeds up or slows down it still has the sense of 'moving' in a fixed direction. The human mind conceptualizes eternal time as having an infinite past and an infinite future though we know that there is no such thing as 'infinity. But 'time' is modeled as something which is 'moving along' no matter how slowly or how fast in the Einsteinian sense.

On the other hand the concept of 'Eternity' does not have this sense of 'moving along' - it is just the same as the concept of 'now'. 'Now' like 'infinity' is an imaginary concept. It is an 'infinitely' small section of time sandwiched between the 'past' and the 'future. 'Now' does not move, it is always just 'the present'.

Thus eternity is just 'now' right now.

Anyway, I accept this is maybe an esoteric concept.

Regards,
Michael

In post 8 Mark wrote: "Maureen; you really disappoint me. First of all you did not answer the question I posed in my other posting to you about whether or not you felt my metaphor of cockroaches for creationists was or wasn't valid in light of your earlier statement that metaphors have equal validity with scientific models."

Not valid!

Mark wrote: "Secondly, you did not post any entry of your own while you chastized me when you thought I would not submit one."

Correct!

Mark wrote: "And thirdly, you did not even bother to comment on my submittal below my own posting but on someone elses because you were too lazy to care enough to give each entrant a response in the appropriate spot."

I gave each entry one post to make it all even - I read your reply to my passport comment.

Peace,
Maureen

From what I gather Michael, he was interviewed for a TV debate here in the UK along with Richard Dawkins on the Heaven & Earth show, Dawkins got a run for his money, I could be wrong but I took from that interview that he was agnostic in that he did not deny that God existed but he just didn鈥檛 know.

Michael:

I have been following your weblog with interest. I am curious about the following. Using the definitions of model and myth in your earlier postings would you agree that myths would necessarily transform into models and models into a model-free state of awareness with increasing levels of knowledge? If so, this would imply that God uses neither myths nor models. Do you think it is possible for us to understand God with no myths or no models, in the same state that It experiences Itself?

In post 39 Ali wrote:

鈥淯sing the definitions of model and myth in your earlier postings would you agree that myths would necessarily transform into models and models into a model-free state of awareness with increasing levels of knowledge?鈥�

Ali: First a couple of definititions:

Ideas 鈥� The content of consciousness.

Knowledge 鈥� Knowledge is present when the phrase 鈥淚 know鈥� is consistent with what is 鈥榯rue鈥�. All knowledge is relational. We know what we know only in relation to everything else that we know (Bart Ehrman). In German, kennen means "to know, be familiar with" and wissen means "to know a fact, know when/how." German-speakers always know (wissen) when to use which one. If they are talking about knowing a person or being familar with something, they will use kennen. If they are talking about knowing a fact or knowing when something will happen, they'll use wissen.

Reasoning 鈥� The process of relating ideas to reach a concept. Proving a concept leads to the attainment of a truth.

Thoughts 鈥� The juxtaposition of ideas in consciousness.

Truth 鈥� Something that is the same for everyone, everywhere, and for eternity.

As a symbol making species we have only 2 ways of thinking about and discussing concepts. These are by the use of a model or by the use of a metaphor. We use models mostly in the world of science and we use metaphors mostly in the world of philosophy.

An example of a model is the symbol we use for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is modeled as a point in the center of a circle to symbolize a proton with another point on the circle鈥檚 circumference to represent an electron. We use language (in this case mathematical language) to deepen this model鈥檚 utility by writing equations to describe things protons and electrons 鈥榙o鈥�. With the use of the model we have an understanding of how a 鈥榟ydrogen atom鈥� manifests itself but we still do not know what a hydrogen atom 鈥榠s鈥�.

Metaphors refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes. An example of an archetype is the fictional hero Don Quixote de la Mancha. We can analyze Don Quixote's literary archetype and proceed to consider archetypal behavior and speculate as to the nature of quixotic behavior. An example of a metaphor is the story of the boy who was asked to guard the sheep against the wolves and to call 鈥榳olf鈥� to the villagers if they were threatened. As a joke on the villagers he called 鈥榳olf鈥�, they came and found no wolf, same thing the second time. The third time the wolf actually came and the boy cried 鈥榳olf鈥� but the villagers didn鈥檛 come. Why? They no longer had 鈥榯rust鈥� in what he said. We don鈥檛 know the historical 鈥榯ruth鈥� of this story i.e. did it physically happen at some place and at some time? But that is of no consequence because we have an intrinsic truth in the story of how 鈥榯rust鈥� can be lost by acting dishonestly.

So the answer to your question about metaphors becoming models is 鈥榥o鈥�. That would be like saying one could discuss suffering (metaphor) using the tool of mathematics (model). On the other hand we can't study gravity using metaphor we have to use mathematics.

You also asked: 鈥淒o you think it is possible for us to understand God with no myths or no models, in the same state that It experiences Itself?

In a way 'yes'. If people must 鈥榲isualize鈥� God they will have to do it with a metaphor or a model 鈥� our limited intelligence gives us no other options. My own preference is to experience God and not to 鈥榰nderstand鈥� God, which I think gets at the thrust of your question.

For example, I can 鈥榚xperience鈥� love and yet not completely 鈥榰nderstand鈥� it but I can 鈥榢now鈥� what it is. Also as I mentioned above I don鈥檛 think I will ever be able to 鈥榲isualize鈥� the hydrogen atom beyond a simple pictorial and mathematical model but even with this limitation I can understand what a hydrogen atom 鈥榠s鈥� to some extent and can 鈥榢now鈥� what it is.

Hope this helps,

Cordially,
Michael

Michael:

Thank you. Your reply describes an elegant way to organize human experience. Indeed, it seems that we must work through models and myths given our limited bandwidth as humans. Is it possible that myths are myths simply because we cannot model them?

Ali:

Models and metaphors will always be separate.

Consider this:

Humans are entities with about 25 thousands genes which gives them a certain intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over their environment. We are both 鈥榤aterial鈥� and 鈥榮piritual鈥� and we use 鈥榤odel鈥� in the former and 鈥榤etaphor鈥� in the latter.

It seems that the more genes a species evolves the greater its ability to 鈥榯hink鈥�, i.e. the more spiritual it becomes. Let us do a bit of speculating about the existence of entities with zero genes or with an infinite number of genes 鈥� this will lead to the following conclusion.

As we approach zero for the number of genes one approaches the idea of 鈥榥on鈥� life. For example, a virus has about 10 genes 鈥� is it 鈥榣iving鈥�, is it 鈥榮piritual鈥� or is it simply a material 鈥榯hing鈥�. Below viruses one has prions, which are simply bits of protein. Are these spiritual or material? At zero genes one might argue that one has entered the non-spiritual, completely material world. This is the world that we 鈥榤odel鈥�.

Now imagine that in billions of years species have developed with say an infinite number of genes. These species will have an ability to think that is as far removed from us as we are from say a bacterium. They will be infinitely more 鈥榮piritual鈥� and will use 鈥榤etaphor鈥� much more that we do today. Spiritual concepts can only be visualized with the aid of metaphor i.e. poetry, or music, or art, or novels etc.

We use models for the material things we study and we use metaphor for the spiritual things. It seems to me that as evolution continues the use of metaphor will become greater and the use of model will decline because these higher thinking species will have figured out the 鈥榝actual鈥� truth of the physical universe and will no longer need to employ models to represent physical things. That is they won鈥檛 need a diagram to represent the hydrogen atom, or a mathematical equation to describe gravity, they will 鈥榢now鈥� what a hydrogen atom or gravity 鈥榠s鈥� in its essence. Their concepts will probably deal more with intrinsic truths and hence will utilize metaphor.

Cordially,
Michael

Just to say - Michael I hope you win the competition. You're the most interesting and your commens are always worth reading.

Re 43:

Thank you, Helen. I'm glad to hear that you find my offerings on the blog worthwhile.

Regards,
Michael

Michael: This is an interesting paradigm. Thank you.

Helen: I agree with you.