Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter cho_pilo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cho_pilo

Guest
ctmu.org/

A: As noted by Berkeley, we can know reality only through perception. So our theories of reality necessarily have a perceptual or observational basis. But as noted by Kant, the process of observation has substantial internal complexity; it is a relationship of subject and object with sensory (phenomenal) and cognitive (categorical) components. So reality is at once monic, because uniformly perceptual, and dualistic, because perception has two complementary aspects. Thus, the “dual aspect monism” of the CTMU. Now consider physics. Because physics is governed by the scientific method, it deals exclusively with phenomena. Thus, it effectively diverts attention away from the cognitive, categorical aspect of perceptual reality, without which neither phenomena nor scientific theories could exist. Because physics is irreducibly dualistic and takes the fundamental separation of mind and matter as axiomatic, it cannot provide us with a complete picture of reality. It can tell us only what lies outside the subjective observer, not within.
 
cho_pilo said:
ctmu.org/

A: As noted by Berkeley, we can know reality only through perception. So our theories of reality necessarily have a perceptual or observational basis. But as noted by Kant, the process of observation has substantial internal complexity; it is a relationship of subject and object with sensory (phenomenal) and cognitive (categorical) components. So reality is at once monic, because uniformly perceptual, and dualistic, because perception has two complementary aspects. Thus, the “dual aspect monism” of the CTMU. Now consider physics. Because physics is governed by the scientific method, it deals exclusively with phenomena. Thus, it effectively diverts attention away from the cognitive, categorical aspect of perceptual reality, without which neither phenomena nor scientific theories could exist. Because physics is irreducibly dualistic and takes the fundamental separation of mind and matter as axiomatic, it cannot provide us with a complete picture of reality. It can tell us only what lies outside the subjective observer, not within.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the subjective observer does not interact at all with matter. If the mind does actually interact with matter, then those interactions can be measured and the governing rules of a mind might be determined. While physics couldn’t directly observe or measure the mind, it could map its outputs.

Moreover, what if it turns out that material phenomena are sufficient to give rise to a subjective observer? Then physics could describe material phenomena, the subjective observer, and their interaction.
 
Yes, though I wouldn’t word it exactly that way, CP. this is the reason why neither science nor religion will ever give us a Unified Field Theory.
 
We can know many truths of science because experiments are repeatable. Indeed, this is the test of a new discovery: can other scientists repeat the experiment of the discoverer and get the same results?

Beyond reach of direct sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is knowledge of God. We see the universe and see that it could not have created itself and could not have existed from an infinite past. Therefore, there is a God.

From captain of the A-team: :hey_bud:
Moreover, what if it turns out that material phenomena are sufficient to give rise to a subjective observer?
Click to expand...
Material phenomena was not capable of creating the universe from nothing. Material phnomena didn’t exist. Thjerefore, there is a God.

And that sums up this subject. 👍
Time to close the thread. 😃
 
By an amazing coincidence, a thread with the exact same OP was started yesterday on sciforums.com. 🙂

The quote in the OP is from a Q&A page by the intelligent design fan who came up with the idea, and the idea appears to be to use lots of impressive sounding gobbledygook and throw in an odd bit of partly understood math and science in the hope of persuading punters. The “theory” has been around since at least 2002 but doesn’t seem to have caught on, largely due to its stupendous incoherence and jaw-breaking tedium.
 
The “theory” has been around since at least 2002 but doesn’t seem to have caught on, largely due to its stupendous incoherence and jaw-breaking tedium.
Click to expand...
“Why does the A-team use reams of sesquipedalian mumbo-jumbo when simple words like my Gettysburg Address can express the most sublime thoughts?” – Abraham Lincoln 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top