Evolution of thought systems, myths and beliefs in history.

[eclectron]

What you call "intelligent principle" is actually what some scientists call "computational capacity of the universe".
https://www.francois-roddier.fr/?p=199
This ability to produce ever more complex structures down to humans is a consequence of thermodynamic principles.

I will study this
but a priori I would say rather: This capacity to produce structures always more complex until the human is opposite to thermodynamic principles.

[sen-no-sen]

I just say that it is advisable to be modest on its scientific certainties ... which are only those of the moment, science being by nature, evolution, a theory chasing the other.

Nobody says the opposite, science by definition is a study, that is to say a level of understanding with respect to a phenomenon.
I never said that "Science" was all-powerful and was systematically right, this last point being a diversion used by its detractors. The scientific study offers theoretical models to explain the phenomena that surround us, and its models are the best explanatory modes that we currently have, better do not mean absolute.

You seem to use the Janic method:basically you introduce doubt to allow personal beliefs and interpretations to exist, free to you, but it does not gain much validity.
As I said above, if you jump out of the window you will fall. Whether the fall of the bodies is related to a force called gravity or to the Creak doesn't change anything, a fall is a fall! And in this study of the facts, the explanatory model explaining the fall of bodies by the force of gravity is more consistent than that of Creak, I cannot assert anything more.

But if you want not to be modest, it doesn't bother me more than that, it's usual and accepted behavior, even cultivated in the society of egos: Horror of uncertainty very disturbing.

This kind of remark stands out in almost all discussions of this kind: there would be on one side the wicked materialists imbued with themselves with their scientific arguments and on the other the nice idealists full of virtues detached from their egos!
It's a somewhat caricatured explanation ...

Quite clever or presumptuous, to affirm how it happened in detail, the principles at work and with certainty.
It seems a bit early, scientifically speaking, but you have the right to be more confident than me.

Precisely there is no explanation in the details, there are theories which roughly sketch elements of the past.
The problem is that in the current period, the same kind of speech is used to smoke society in the non-permanent explanation of everything.
Never in history have humans had so much knowledge, and yet our society shines as never in its explanatory incompleteness.
Economic crisis? The ecological crisis? Terrorism? Everything is left to various interpretations, to artistic vagueness on the pretext that there would be no global explanation. This is a very practical position that keeps people in constant expectation.

[eclectron]

I never said that "Science" was all-powerful and was systematically right, this last point being a diversion used by its detractors. The scientific study offers theoretical models to explain the phenomena that surround us, and its models are the best explanatory modes that we currently have, better do not mean absolute.

You never said it, but you said:

When it is said that the will is a product resulting from the evolutionary processes consecutive to the thermodynamic phenomenon we are faced with a fact, a fact of the same weight as the roundness of the earth. This is not debatable.

Now this is quite questionable, the fact may only be fragmented in a narrow vision (not necessarily voluntary, even rather not.)

you introduce doubt to allow personal beliefs and interpretations to exist

Absolutely, that's exactly it and I even share my "beliefs / intuitions", so I don't hide anything.
I work a lot with intuition, I believe more in what is inside of me than what people want to impose on me from the outside but don't worry about my mental state, I experience my interior facing the reality of the facts. Pragmatic and rational dreamer, if it exists?
I do not stick to what I can see with my eyes or by my reason, there is more ...
And I em… of * (kindly ) the pure rationals, who cannot understand, whereas I understand them, I know it's annoying… I don't say that for you, I don't situate you yet but you don't seem far away. (I know, I'm teasing too )
* car in general they want to get me into their narrow world where I would waste away ...

There would be on one side the wicked materialists imbued with themselves with their scientific arguments and on the other the nice idealists full of virtues detached from their egos!

There is a bit of that for the wicked materialists imbued with themselves with their scientific culture which strengthens them. By dint of being right on a subject, we are right on everything. Conditioning by repetition, social status etc.
But there are very open scientists, it is even the first quality of a scientific spirit.
The rest does not concern me I am neither kind nor detached from my ego , finally everything varies according to the moments, the situations.

Precisely there is no explanation in the details, there are theories which roughly sketch elements of the past.

Allow me to call this opinion (scientific, certainly, therefore with all the qualities of rigor that this entails) of the moment.
Science is often fragmented, not to say always.

Never in history have humans had so much knowledge, and yet our society shines as never in its explanatory incompleteness.

Ah but not for me , I explain society with the ego.
Afterwards, any societal problem is only derived from the nature of ...
End of story, except that not end, because revealing and seeing all the implications of the ego in itself to make it less harmful, is the story of a life.
All of this is aimed at solving social problems and not shining in society.

Everything is left to various interpretations, to artistic vagueness on the pretext that there would be no global explanation. This is a very practical position that keeps populations in constant expectation.

It is regrettable indeed, but there we discuss in small committee, we can afford to nitpick.

Explaining society by thermodynamics, does it lead to the solution of society's problems?
(my intuition tells me that no, but I don't know, still haven't studied Roddier…)

[GuyGadebois]

When it is said that the will is a product resulting from the evolutionary processes consecutive to the thermodynamic phenomenon we are faced with a fact, a fact of the same weight as the roundness of the earth. This is not debatable.

Now this is quite questionable, the fact is perhaps only fragmentary in a narrow vision (not necessarily voluntary, even rather not.)

Absolutely, some people think that the earth is flat, and / or hollow.

[sen-no-sen]

Allow me to call this opinion (scientific, certainly, therefore with all the qualities of rigor that this entails) of the moment.
Science is often fragmented, not to say always.

The roundness of the earth, global warming or plate tectonics would therefore rewash opinion?
The fact that the entropy of an open system increases is not an opinion, to prove it to you I suggest you stop eating. If my time after several days, less, years your body is to remain unscathed your opinions will then have forged reality ... but the world does not work that way.

Ah, but not for me, I explain society with the ego.

Can you give a definition of ego? And by extension explain the fact of its existence?

[Janic]

You seem to use the Janic method: basically you introduce doubt to allow personal beliefs and interpretations to exist, free to you, but it does not gain much validity.

You should then read it again!

Scientific study OFFERS THEORETICAL MODELS to explain the phenomena around us,

Until then no problem, in a theoretical model is worth another; but then it spoils!

and his models are the best explanatory modes

Cock-a-doodle Doo!
according to what type of fashion? If we are in favor of all synthetic chemicals like Izentrop, SES explanatory models are best, since it builds on them SES beliefs.
The opponents of all synthetic chemicals do the same: Where is the truth, the right mode in question since each one retains only what gives him reason?
However I have no method of questioning, [*] there are professionals in all the fields mentioned who do it better than me and it is like in the market, each one does his shopping there according to his tastes and needs .

that we currently have, better does not mean absolute.

This confirms that the best today will probably be the worst tomorrow.
Typical example than that of A compared to H where each uses a different reference mode.

[*] who, when I underlined the conditionalities of scientific studies, said that science was made up of doubts precisely?

Absolutely, some people think that the earth is flat, and / or hollow.

ah, the big picture of Epinal!
A fun little physics experience.
Take a world map, pour a large glass of water over it and observe the result.
Do the same with a flat map
start again with a flat card placed in a bowl!
Nothing religious in this simple physical experience.
result only the bowl retains water! It was the best explanatory model ... from the moment until Newton.

Isaac Newton (December 25, 1642 J - March 20, 1727 J, or January 4, 1643 G - March 31, 1727 G) N 1 is a physicist, mathematician, philosopher, alchemist, astronomer and theologian English, then British. Emblematic figure of science, he is especially recognized for having founded classical mechanics, for his theory of universal gravitation and the creation, in competition with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, of infinitesimal calculus. In optics, he developed a theory of color based on the observation that a prism breaks down white light into a visible spectrum. He also invented the reflection telescope composed of a concave primary mirror called Newton's telescope

that there are fools, less stupid than those who ostracize them.

[eclectron]

The roundness of the earth, global warming or plate tectonics would therefore rewash opinion?

Of course, these are scientific facts that are now recognized and previously denied or ignored.
but not everything has this obviousness.
For me it is not obvious that man is an emerging property of Energy with nothing else as a principle at work.
From a distance we see it but we do not explain it in detail.
Life should already be explained ...

The fact that the entropy of an open system increases is not an opinion, to prove it to you I suggest you stop eating. If my time after several days, less, years your body is to remain unscathed your opinions will then have forged reality ... but the world does not work that way.

I'm not going to bother you with this, I'm not competent but looking for "panic food" on the net
(which is probably a little-known form of energy)

Can you give a definition of ego? And by extension explain the fact of its existence?

The ego is the survival instinct, necessary and natural, proper to all living beings, who takes power on the whole cognitive sphere in humans (not obliged to do so…)
In other words, it is an idea among the chaos of ideas that emerge naturally in the mind, which claims to be the center, which claims to be the owner of the whole being. However the reality is that it is an idea among many others ...

Meditate and you will see that "it" thinks alone.
There is therefore a censor who sets himself up as a master, the ego, for the purposes of stability and security in this cognitive chaos.
Illness, if I may say begins, * when this survival instinct is concerned only with the survival of the body but with the ideas we hold dear, when we identify with the possessions we hold dear. My wife, my car, my socks, my, my, my ...
* the disease is cultivated very early in our societies. Patients inculcate their own disease in their offspring. And all the sick say "well no we are not sick! "" Anyway, living differently is impossible! »CQFD.
For the ancients, in other words, "I cannot be stupid since I am a customs officer".

This ego is separative in nature, a main idea separates from the others and says to be me.
So I am separate from others and from absolutely everything in the universe.
This isolation is a source of suffering, hence the futile attempts to connect via religions, while taking care not to damage the said separation, the ego, which obviously gives no satisfactory result.
The problem is one who seeks to solve it ....

All the problems reside in this partition supposed to bring security and obviously does not succeed because separation is fear. Separation only brings conflict with other separations.
all this is so ubiquitous! but so ingrained .... that the task of liberation is arduous.

For the sake of reciprocity and saving time, I would like an answer to this question:
Explaining society by thermodynamics, does it lead to the solution of society's problems?

[GuyGadebois]

Absolutely, some people think that the earth is flat, and / or hollow.

ah, the big picture of Epinal!
A fun little physics experience.

What image of Epinal? There are some who actually believe that the earth is flat and others that it is hollow. There are even some who believe that a god created the universe on October 23 -4004 (yes, yes, without laughing!). Find out...

[Janic]

What image of Epinal? There are some who actually believe that the earth is flat and others that it is hollow. There are even some who believe that a god created the universe on October 23 -4004 (yes, yes, without laughing!). Find out...

it is quite possible, there are even some who believe that this same god does not exist (if, if, without laughing). Like what Images of Epinal is very common.

PS: I am not interested in religions, even if their role is not negligible within our societies, and even if some people deny it.

[GuyGadebois]

What image of Epinal? There are some who actually believe that the earth is flat and others that it is hollow. There are even some who believe that a god created the universe on October 23 -4004 (yes, yes, without laughing!). Find out...

It's entirely possible, there are even some who believe that this same god does not exist (if, if, without laughing). Like what Images of Epinal is very common.

What is possible, that the universe is + or - 6000 years old, or that there are morons to believe it?
What is an Epinal image for you is very serious for others.
It's like the Auberge Rouge, the Loch Ness monster or the crop circles, for the first case, we know today that there was never a murder there, for two seconds, this are two hoaxes that have been revealed by their authors but despite everything, there are still crazy people who hang on to the brush!