causation (Introduction)

by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 23:54 (3821 days ago) @ romansh

a reasonable conclusion, but not only one: a living universe. 
> Unfortunately a living universe does not get us anywhere. We end up playing semantic games. If the universe is living so are the rocks in my back garden. I have no problem here, but if we truly do mean this in some literal fashion then living in a sense looses its meaning for me. And that too is OK. I think the distinction between animate and inanimate is ultimately a false one. 
> 
> > there ya have it again. What is nice for me is that I do not believe in this "monism religion", yet it still leads to the same conclusion as mine. There will be the 10% to 20% unreasonable. But all within those limits should be proven "not reasonable". This monism is great stuff when needed.
> 
> I don't know in what sense you are using the word religion. Literally it comes from the Latin to reconnect. If you are using it in this sense then no problem.
> 
> Otherwise if you are using it as a theological worldview, I think you are way off base.
> 
> For me monism is a description of what I observe (there are different flavours of monism).-I believe stating the universe is probably alive (or not) gets us one step closer to an answer. I think to ignore the data and say "I won't answer" because of some faith statement in monism isn't the way to go. That's why I call it a religion. Won't make a prediction based on a "belief" and not data. -Remember rom. I understand you can say the same about how I see it. I list what we have, and make a prediction. yes, no, or maybe. Based on proofs. I am ok with that.-
"arbitrary". Arbitrary proofs lead to arbitrary conclusions. Change the word "arbitrary" to the definition listed for that word. Then tack the word "conclusion" at the end of it. What does it mean? -I am ok with a "living cell phone". it proves a living universe.