The Narnia Code

[Alc]

But then we have to ask: What made him want us to think that?

The same thing that made him want to trick us into thinking the universe is older than it is and that evolution happened - he switches off his omniscience and gets a bit unpredictable.

 

[Rabbie]

The same thing that made him want to trick us into thinking the universe is older than it is and that evolution happened - he switches off his omniscience and gets a bit unpredictable.

perhaps he is Colin in disguise

 

[JamesLast99]

It was a straight-forward question that you answered with a few 'If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you' type responses, then ignored.

To someone who doesn't believe in either, what is the difference between one fictional being and another? For example, God and a dragon.

Well Komodo Dragons exist, and theres my mother in law? Then theres my mother in law as proof that God does not exist? But then again maybe he does.I beleive the problem may be in your definition as fictional.

 

[Alc]

perhaps he is Colin in disguise

Now that would be a twist.
Any Christian posters would no longer be able to argue with any of his posts.
Spelling and grammatical corrections would become the word of God.
Doesn't bear thinking about

 

[dan-cat]

We know that we do things for a reason, so it's far easier to understand things if we assume that the universe/God does the same.

In much the same way that a wheel turns better if it is round. Do you not find yourself asking why it is easier to think in such terms?

Isn't this some variation on the anthropomorphic fallacy?

No it is a questioning of why the order of the universe fits so easily into our frame of perception.

 

[Alc]

Well Komodo Dragons exist, and theres my mother in law? Then theres my mother in law as proof that God does not exist? But then again maybe he does.I beleive the problem may be in your definition as fictional.

Okay, we're getting somewhere. Assume by fictional I mean:
A creature/being created by man at some point in the past - probably for reasons of telling warning tales to people, back before science existed - and for whose existence there is no proof. A creature/being whose existence and abilities defy all known physical laws.

 

[dan-cat]

Doesn't bear thinking about

It would be a truely hideous epiphany. Especially for americans.

 

[Alc]

In much the same way that a wheel turns better if it is round. Do you not find yourself asking why it is easier to think in such terms?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I don't understand the question?
In what terms? Experience and education tell me that a round wheel turns better than a square one. Someone was the first to work this out, presumably by observing some natural phenomenon and/or by trial and error.

 

[JamesLast99]

Okay, we're getting somewhere. Assume by fictional I mean:
A creature/being created by man at some point in the past - probably for reasons of telling warning tales to people, back before science existed - and for whose existence there is no proof. A creature/being whose existence and abilities defy all known physical laws.

I'll come back to that in the morning - I have a hot date. Well more angry by now I suppose.

 

[Alc]

It would be a truely hideous epiphany. Especially for americans.

Exactly!
Americans are all gun-toting murderers.
Yes, Lord, we are.

 

[Alc]

I'll come back to that in the morning - I have a hot date. Well more angry by now I suppose.

Enjoy yourself.

 

[Rabbie]

In much the same way that a wheel turns better if it is round. Do you not find yourself asking why it is easier to think in such terms?

because our brains find it easier to map things onto our existing frame of reference

No it is a questioning of why the order of the universe fits so easily into our frame of perception.

Again thats the way our brains work. They try to keep things as simple as possible and so we for the most part do not grasp the subtleties of Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics or the General Theory of Relativity.

 

[dan-cat]

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I don't understand the question?
In what terms? Experience and education tell me that a round wheel turns better than a square one. Someone was the first to work this out, presumably by observing some natural phenomenon and/or by trial and error.

The wheel turns better because it is round and as you say it is a copy of a natural phenomenon. There are a set of rules here that are in implicit in making a wheel round to rotate better.

In the same way, perhaps the idea of reasoning behind the order of the universe is also implicitly correct? It is easier because it is implicit, perhaps?

 

[dan-cat]

because our brains find it easier to map things onto our existing frame of reference

I'm arguing that the 'ease' of perception is provided by the order of the universe.

Again thats the way our brains work. They try to keep things as simple as possible and so we for the most part do not grasp the subtleties of Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics or the General Theory of Relativity.

Well either reality exists independently or it doesn't. The ability for something to be perceived in simple terms is a quality of the object not of the perceiver, IMO.

 

[Rabbie]

I'm arguing that the 'ease' of perception is provided by the order of the universe.

Well either reality exists independently or it doesn't. The ability for something to be perceived in simple terms is a quality of the object not of the perceiver, IMO.

I beg to disagree. I beleve that reality exists independently of the observer. I think that a very complex object can be perceived in very simple terms because the perceiver lacks the capacity to observe the full complexity of the object.

 

[Alc]

I beg to disagree. I beleve that reality exists independently of the observer. I think that a very complex object can be perceived in very simple terms because the perceiver lacks the capacity to observe the full complexity of the object.

I know that one of my psychology lecturers back in uni used to say that he believed the brain had to evolve to do just this, since if we concentrated on all the minutiae(sp?) we'd never be able to get anything done on a day-to-day basis. Back when we hunted mammoths, or what have you, we needed to know that if they were driven off a cliff the fall killed them, we didn't need to understand the physics behind why they didn't fly.

 

[dan-cat]

I beg to disagree. I beleve that reality exists independently of the observer.

Yes, thats what I meant when I said

The ability for something to be perceived in simple terms is a quality of the object not of the perceiver, IMO.

It is the quality of the object, it's external reality that allows it to be perceived in both simple and complex terms. That's the beauty of it. The further your capacity to perceive, the greater the universe's intricacy becomes to you. The scope of this intricacy is as yet undefinable because it has not yet been fully perceived.

 

[dan-cat]

Back when we hunted mammoths, or what have you, we needed to know that if they were driven off a cliff the fall killed them, we didn't need to understand the physics behind why they didn't fly.

So he was saying that quantum physics and the like is flying in the face of evolution? That's to say that by asking too many questions we could be doing ourselves harm?

 

[Alc]

So he was saying that quantum physics and the like is flying in the face of evolution? That's to say that by asking too many questions we could be doing ourselves harm?

Not at all. He was saying that the need to ask questions like that doesn't inherently exist. Of course people will ask, but since it's true that far from everybody does so, the need for it it can't be some quality inherent to all humans.

Also, wanting to know how quantum physics works is entirely separate from believing - and so wanting to learn more about - the idea that there is some underlying reason why it works.

 

[dan-cat]

Not at all. He was saying that the need to ask questions like that doesn't inherently exist. Of course people will ask, but since it's true that far from everybody does so, the need for it it can't be some quality inherent to all humans.

Give him a ring and ask him to account for the popularity of religion then.