esoteriic.com

Reconciliation with phenomenology: Transcendetal Phenomology vs Stochastic Phenomenology.

In this article I discuss how to reconcile my previous thoughts on phenomenology with the thoughts of Nassim Taleb. In a previous article I shunned the use of phenomenology and in particular unwitting use of phenomenology in order to justify morality (or opinion in general), I see it as an egregious error by those who consider themselves scientists. While I admit that we don't have all the answers to the universe and that (dis)proof of god is currently not possible I do not recommend using phenomenology as a justification for anything. Taleb, on the other hand, is in favour of accepting phenomenology. As I'm fascinated by his work and way of thinking then I find myself troubled by the (prima facie) lack of reconciliation between his ideas and my own with regards to phenomenology.

My contention is that phenomenology appeals to transcendentalism which is not scientific by definition. Science is about understanding the universe through methodical investigation of natural processes which are accepted to be entirely endogenous (no external action required to explain what we see). Nassim Taleb is a strong proponent of a universe which is deep in mystery with unknowable inner workings. Many natural mechanisms are not predictable or well understood, and hence implicitly accepts exogenous processes. However, in t his article I will outline how I think it is possible to reconcile our disparate views.

Taleb openly shuns the "scientification" of knowledge and learning, partly on the grounds that people become hubristic: "I know the cause of something", "I can predict something with certainty because I used science". Humans (too) often show an inability to predict the future which is partly due to a lack of understanding but also from the inherent randomess in the universe. It might be possible to know everything there is to know about the universe but some legal of inherent randomness would prevent us from being able to fully predict how the universe will evolve. I'll add that a universe with stochastic processes may not be entirely predictable but they would not necessarily be dependent upon an exogenous force. This in my mind is stochastic phenomenology (SP).

The other type of phenomenology is transcendental (TP). I can think of two ways for this to exist:

1) One which is a super-set of SP where certain processes can be explained with some level of predictability (stochasticity) but where we are ultimately forbidden from having complete predictability due to some exogenous force / power / cause /deity (pick your word of choice).

2) A universe which is eventually understood with complete predictability (the how) but still not understood or explainable (the why) without appealing to some exogenous power.

Conclusion

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An atheist can accept SP but not TP. Someone who believes in TP has the option of believing in SP (as a subset). In short, this is the reconciliation. SP is a subset of TP. SP I can accept as a best guess working model, while TP is something that I accept as being possible but not provable true. I don't think we can prove which one is the "truth". This is where i differ from consensual learned Western thought; I'm not hubristi enough ;-). I obviously realise that Quantum Mechanics prefers a random universe but I do not take that as proof.

Ok so perhaps there is a little bit more to talk about....

Transcendental Phenomenology

In a previous article I argued that science is not compatible with transcendentalism, and ergo not compatible with God. I did not assert that science disproves god, nor that god does not exist. I merely stated that the scientific method it not capable of properly handling transcendentalistic phenomenology.

From what I can tell, Taleb also believes this to be true however he accepts both the exists of god (if I understood correctly) and that the universe is ultimately not predictable.

In a previous article I said that science does not handle transcendentalism and therefore is not compatible with phenomenology. In this case I was referring to TP, not SP, but I did not have the words to articulate it at that time.

In SP the universe can be stochastic and rationally understood without the need of a creator; we may not know what the cause of something was but we are sure that the cause (of something) was not due to god. This allows for a reconciliation of lack of transcendental phenomenology provided we accept SP. Restated: science only accepts one type of phenomenology: that which is stochastic.

In an SP universe knowledge, and beliefs, do not exist outside of human minds. There might be an exogenous truth, that exists outside of humans, but it is not dependent on some transcendental phenomena (God). Without appealing to some Cause which is exogenous to the universe then all knowledge must be derivable from what we see, although not necessarily predictable.