RE: Action at a distance is realized. Quantum computer.
SUBTOPIC: The challenge? and Entanglement
※→ Agent Smith, noAxioms, et al,

PREFACE: Establishing an attitude that accepts or denies a theory and be prepared to work with it is NOT so great a challenge.

It's a challenge to realism. — Agent Smith

So for me, it is a pity that Einstein's idea doesn't work. The reasonable thing just doesn't work. — Wayfarer

(COMMENT)

◈ My Acceptance, with respect to the realism challenge, is that "Relativity" has been tested a number of different ways, and has NOT failed a single examination over the last century. I call that track record the response in terms of "realism."

◈ My Acceptance, with respect to the realism challenge, is that "Quantum Mechanics (QM)" may NOT be completely right (but then what I know about QM • and the implications it has opened up • can fit in the head of a pin), but has yet to be proven wrong.

But in both cases (1) the study of the very fast [Relativity], and (2) the study of the very small [QM], represent progress on a scale we have never seen before. And while the two do NOT currently interlock or mutually support the other (in all the critical ways), it is NOT likely that we will discard them any time soon.

We will still teach classical mechanics - and use it in all the same critical ways that Newtonian technology has dragged us over the last 300+ years, it may very well serve us over the next 300 years. The legacy of the giants (Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, and Albert Einstein, each once members of the Royal Society) will be remembered forever. We stand on their shoulders.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Would a “science-based philosophy” be “better” than the contemporary philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: What is "Science?" • What is a "science-based Philosophy?" • What is the "
Philosophy of Science?"
⁜→ Jackson, Skalidris, et al,

"Defining basic concepts is what the philosophy of science does. You seemed to reject this idea but I did not understand why."
— Jackson

"a concept in philosophy of science that is defined with scientific concepts?"
— Skalidris

"The philosophy of science does nothing but discuss scientific concepts."
— Jackson

(COMMENT)

The "Philosophy of Science" is a sub-discipline of "Philosophy." "Philosophy" is the (in a broad sense). the critical and systematic study of an unlimited spectrum of concepts (science being just one of these concepts). The "science-based Philosophy" is the study of a subject that is done through the scientific method that renders verifiable findings by observation or experience rather than theory or subjective approach via logic.

The idea of "contemporary philosophy" is also subjective in its definition and application. I am 70 years old. What I feel as to what might be "contemporary" is not likely to be the same as a new undergrad taking Philosophy 101.

It would do away with Popper 's methodology!
— Hillary

OK, I have my chuckle for the day.

I've completed my doctorate studies, and I just cringe when Karl Popper is mentioned. IF you understand Popper, THEN you are a level beyond me.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The new look...
※→ Gnomon, Hillary, et al,

Yes, that term ('information") is rather difficult to define.

Dear brother Gnomon, as interesting your thesis truly is, we still have to take into account that the wavefunction contains no information but a means for particles to explore. Information is not contained in the patterns connecting particles, but in the stuff describing them.
(COMMENT)

Information is anything detected or not, no matter what form the carrier would take; no matter the value or the content. Even the total lack of information is, in itself, the transmission of information.

It is virtually impossible to cite anything in reality that does not convey information.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: God and Existence
SUBTOPIC: Sound and Valid Outcomes
※→ Hillary, et al,

An exploded view of gods, how you imagine that?[/reply]
(COMMENT)

An "Exploded View" of any supernatural entity is an image of the respective components of that entity. If you are defining the attributes of a Supreme Being, the components bundled like omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, and preeminence, as the key components that must be assembled for the entity to be The Supreme Being. In the case of a Supreme Being having dominion over lesser deities, the exploded view would also demonstrate the relative strengths of the particular entity. The God of War might be the most powerful (second only to the Supreme Being) but greater than all other deities in that regard. However, the Goddess of Love would have more influence in that quality than the God of War; etc, etc, etc.


Why has the uncertainty principle offer a perspective on a proof that has greater probability? Do you mean a greater probability being true than the gods being true,?[/reply]
(COMMENT)

With the Uncertainty Principle, you may be able to attribute a given event to a God Like Power being used, but not know which God was exercising that power.

With the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), you might be able to discern the likelihood of the power behind the event, but not know for sure. The Greek God Aeolus's primary power was dominion over the winds. However, the Greek God Poseidon had dominion over the seas. Strong winds over the ocean may create storm-tossed seas. The PSR might deduce a storm to one or the other. But might not know for sure.

Both the PSR and the Uncertainty Principle have an element of probability associated with it.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: God and Existence
SUBTOPIC: Clear and Convincing
※→. et al,

I must have misunderstood the topic at hand. I'm still looking for some evidence of the Supreme Being.

[◈] Rationalist Proof.
. ✦ (Explanations for the existence of the things we encounter...)

[◈] Thornistic Proof.
. ✦ (The nature or essence of a discovery...)

[◈] Augustinian Proof.
. ✦ (The observation or decoction of abstract and generalized patterns...)

[◈] Neo-Platonic Proof.
. ✦ (The recognition of an end consequence by means of an exploded view.)

[◈] Aristotelian Proof.
. ✦ (Sensory perception of change, the logical sequence of nature, and the exceptions of a path...)

Much the the Principle of Uncertainty (Quantum Mechanics - Heisenberg) or the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Logic - Leibniz), I thought we would approach the topic from the perspective of the outside observer and moving towards the Proof that had the greater probability.

OR -- Am I completely off track?

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: What is Metaphysics?
SUBTOPIC: Metaphysics can sometimes be stretched too far.
※→ Constance, et al,

"But beneath this, one would ask, isn't there something intuitively foundational? E.g., when we speak of God, but deliver the concept from its fictions, is there not something undeniably there that necessitated the fiction in the first place? This is the "essence" of God, one could argue."
- Constance

There is a paradox to an intelligent discussion on the topic of "The Supreme Being;" or even lesser deities. It is exceptionally difficult to discuss an entity when:

• You cannot define the entity in concept or general characteristics.
• You cannot agree on the capabilities of the entity.
• You cannot define the connection between the Supreme Being (or lesser deities) and humanity.

The Abrahamic Religious factions all acknowledge the same Supreme Being. But the practice of morals are inconsistent when - one faction makes the claim that another faction is "impure" and "the world's dogs." This is an example of a "depraved indifference" to life. And Metaphysics cannot uniformly make that leap.

Regards
R

RE: What is Metaphysics?
SUBTOPIC: Time
※→ javi2541997, Constance, et al,


(COMMENT)

"※→".= To the attention of
It is not so dissimilar to the arrow you select when making a reply in this forum.

" javi2541997, Constance," = Obviously the identification of those specifically mentioned or in response to

et al = Definition of "et al,"

Regards,
R

RE: What is Metaphysics?
SUBTOPIC: Time
※→ javi2541997, Constance, et al,

I wonder what I did that caused you to ask that question?



No, I am not an AI Program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


I believe you are correct. It is about "reality." But "reality" is a difficult subject → that most people do not want to address. It requires a very careful vocabulary.

Regards,
R

RE: What is Metaphysics?
SUBTOPIC: Time
※→ javi2541997, et al,


It is the concept of time and its paradoxes which I am most interested on metaphysics.

(EXPLORATORY QUESTION)

• "Javi: Interesting, doesn't it?"

I am often caught in the fog of time. In fact, I get lost almost immediately when traditional physicists place a sphere (a three-dimensional object) is embedded on a space-time grid (a two-dimensional object).

(METAPHYSICS. THOUGHT EXPERIMENT)
We often see this to demonstrate how a mass wraps the space-time. However, we know that space-time is also a three-dimensional object on a vector expanding outward (we think) both space and time. And, it must be creating some sort of turbulence would be created. But, if the mass is quasi-stationary inside the 3d space-time, then the wakes in space-time will not be created. And, as space-time of the universe expands, everything else is dragged along.

Regards,
R

RE: What is metaphysics?
javi2541997, et al,

I am probably the least credible source in the discussion. So I thought I would relook at some of the latest news from the latest brains on the subject.

On the issue of "Dark Matter:"

• Even after decades of searching, scientists have never seen a particle of dark matter. Evidence for the substance’s existence is close to incontrovertible, but no one yet knows what it is made of. For decades physicists have hoped dark matter would prove to be heavy—consisting of so-called weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) that could be straightforwardly detected in the lab.
  
• With no definitive sign of WIMPs emerging from years of careful searching, however, physicists have been broadening the scope of their quest.
  SOURCE: Direct Proof of Dark Matter May Lurk at Low-Energy Frontiers, Scientific American, By Daniel Garisto on June 9, 2020
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/direct-proof-of-dark-matter-may-lurk-at-low-energy-frontiers/

On the issue of "Dark Energy:"

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the universe.
SOURCE: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, NASA Science . https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

There is always some exciting news concerning "The Bulk" every time I turn around. But there is a connection to some potential problems.

First, when we consider the nonlinear nature of the mapping to a higher-dimensional space, what is the most sound and valid approach?

Second, At what point do scientific inquiries get put on the shelf given the expense involved related to the computation power required.

There may be a number of backdoor approaches that may yield more at a more reasonable and cost-effective outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

.

.

,

Many Thanks, I learn something new every day. You are very correct. LINK: I had my labels backward.. My Old Man Syndrome is showing.

My thought is that the distance between your perception, and my perception of "Dark Energy" and Dark Matter is that area in which you capture some quantity of each dark substance (which we cannot do) and put your observation to the test under the Scientific Method. If the observation is not testable, it is not science.


What is the definition of a scientific hypothesis?

[*] The definition depends on the subject. In science, a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. It is a prediction or explanation that is tested by an experiment. Observations and experiments may disprove a scientific hypothesis, but can never entirely prove one.

Most Respectfully,
R

et al,

I think your response was most insightful.

(COMMENT)

I think it would be better if Metaphysics was thought of as the study of reality. It would be difficult to mention something that might not be entangled with the fundamental of reality.

Within the generalized material universe that is detectable, that is subject to examination by the Scientific Method, there are those things that are often talked about in Theoretical Physics that rightly belong to Metaphysics. (Imagine: String Theory, Dark Matter and Energy, the Multiverse, etc) These things can be imagined but not tested. Similarly, Physics today says that Dark Matter makes up about 80% - 90% of the tangible universe. You should be swimming in Dark Matter. That is as supernatural as the belief in the Supreme Being.

( ∑Ω)

Metaphysics encompasses many things in the alternative.

Supernatural Amino
Most Respectfully,
R