Ontology 5 - Laws and Constants?

Rejecting the premise you were so sure I would accept.


So let's start investigating your premises then.

You say "Reality is defined by and limited to laws and constants". You are so confident of this that you even assume that I will, of course, agree with you.

In fact, I don't.

The "Laws" and "Constants" that you speak of are merely our way of describing what we observe in reality. But all we can reasonably conclude from the fact that we can discover such "Laws" and "Constants" is that reality, being all that there is with no exclusions, is necessarily self-reflective. It can, by necessity, only ever feed back into ITSELF. And we can conclude that by doing so it establishes constraints within which this feedback must occur in order to retain its internal consistency. The effect of these constraints that are imposed by this need for reality to remain internally consistent is what we perceive as "Laws" and "Constants".

This also has a bearing on my conclusion in Video number 3, and that is why I must reject your second premise too. As I disagree that everything, by necessity, is "defined and limited" I certainly don't, therefore, agree that it must require an ontological "cause". This is the main reason why modern physics rejects the notion of "causation", and it won't allow it to be snuck back in through the back door either.

This really does render the remainder of your videos null and void, so at this point you are basically back to square one. However, out of courtesy I will address some further issues with the remainder of your videos in the next few videos. I see no need, however, for you to address what I am saying in those follow up videos as I'm rejecting the conclusions on which they are based anyway.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• debate
• about
• the
• existence
• of
• allah
• part
• five

[dQuarters]

Out of the five criticisms I've seen, this is the most damaging to Mo's proof. especially since it contradicts his point on Allah's free will defining reality, reality being locked to rules, rules and reality both being Allah... ow. My brain is oozing a little.

[rozeboosje]

LOL. Thanks. Don't forget though that this is nothing but idle speculation. Still. That is all that is required from me in this particular debate.

[CousinoMacul]

That was also my biggest beef with his video series. As soon as he said that he was sure that you would agree with his statement about laws and constants, I said "Well I don't! And I'm sure Pino doesn't either."

[rozeboosje]

(grin)

[JimmerSD]

His entire argument was based on the assumption that you would stipulate that the concept of infinity was spurious.

Nicely done.

[rozeboosje]

Thank you

[dQuarters]

Haha! Must be nice... Bloody skeptics.

[rozeboosje]

Good. I hope I'm not overloading people.

[TheKidFrom13thStreet]

Yep...his argument was pretty much fried by now, but I'm enjoying the watch. :)

[rozeboosje]

Thank you!