03.10.10
What do you mean, ‘naturalism’?
James said,
March 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm ·
Good point, but I was pointing out how difficult it is to define even with relation to physics. Even within QM, the different interpretations espouse different conceptions of “naturalism” (i.e. Bohmian, many worlds, etc.).
I am sure I hurried past what you meant. Feel free to elaborate since this is an important issue.
You are absolutely right here: QM alone raises so many issues that it seems as if we are near the boundary of nature (if not the mountains of madness, to use the phrase of Lovecraft).
Jim Buck said,
March 10, 2010 at 5:35 pm
It only works as part of a dichotmous pairing: naturalism–supernaturalism. “Natural” signifies: rocks and rivers mountains; flora and fauna; elements; stars; and languages. “Supernatural” gets loaded with such literary creations as: Gods and Godesses; sprites and fairies; vampires and werewolves; ESP and UFOs
Jim Buck said,
March 11, 2010 at 5:12 am
nemo wrote:
“QM alone raises so many issues that it seems as if we are near the boundary of nature (if not the mountains of madness, to use the phrase of Lovecraft).”
Lacan avec Dawkins needs to be written sometime; suffice to say, at present, that “mount impropable” is the point de capiton which prevents us acknowledging we are in the mountains of madness . On pages 169-180 of The God Delusion, Dawkins employs the Quantum Mechanical notion of the “mulitiverse” in his attempt to deal with the problem of candidature.
Jim Buck said,
March 11, 2010 at 5:15 am
Another good book, by a student of David Bohm’s, is reviewed here:
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB2104.pdf