How can physicists attempt to explain the quantum eraser experiment if they aren't to use any philosophy?

You can't tell what time is through measurement. You can't say if it's matter or not matter. You can't say anything about it from measurement.

Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology says, according to his interviews, that the universe will expand until "it no longer knows what size it is". You have to think philosophically to unpack what that means

Take the example of whether you would go back in time of you went faster than the speed of light. Measurements say it can't be done but speculation on it is done by scientist and this might be fruitful for other aspects of science. And since it's not based on measurement it is philosophical science at that point.

Science alone does not give value but science cannot be done "in a box". Common sense plays a role and what common sense is cannot be decided by scientific measurements. But my point was that Aristotle was accepted as an authority on science within the Church for some 15 hundred years and this was unfounded and stood in the way of progress

Their ideas bring paradigm shifts which allow scientist to frame theoretical matters in new ways. Philosophers don't do the measurements but measurements can never stand alone without conceptualization of them and those concepts have much to do with what is discussed in philosophy.

I don't know why you dislike philosophy in how it applies to science but science can't do without philosophy whether you like it or dislike it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

This is a real field of study

Measuring something is not detection. That's the confusion here. How to conceptualize these things can not be done fully in terms of measurement

That depends on your philosophical understanding of time. What some scientists call time we can detect. What some philosophers call time time you can't detect. And positions inbetween these two is an area where philosophers and scientists should communicate on what they mean by time

The same applies to waves being called "processes". Ontology can ask "processes of what?" Can a process be fundamental? That's philosophy

They detect change, but saying change IS time is a philosophical theory

Nobody denies succession of events. How succession of motions, causes, and change relates to the concept of "time", what time looks like, is a philosophy question. This is especially important since absolute time does not play a role in relativity. Scientists cannot help having philosophical ideas because you can't do science without it. But they don't always realize the many different ways their conclusions can be seen by philosophy. What is a massless particle? Can something come from absolutely nothing? How does Bell's theorem relate to compatabilism? Can a particle be at two places at once or is it really two particles? There are innumerable such questions and they relate to philosophy as much as to science

In a very real sense we can say time doesnt exist, yes. Descartes and Leibniz said as much. But although time is similar to matter and needs matter, I don't think it is identical to matter. There is something there that is mysterious and which's nature is shown in relativity. Anti-matter has reverse time and i don't think this means just that it acts with the opposite motions of regular matter

I know the song. The Catholic Church fought with the progress of modern society for years. It was trying to hold on to the old culture that has existed for centuries in the past. It fought heliocentrism, relativity, evolution, changes in music art and architecture, and democracy. The Church was always the last to approve of something modern. In 1899 Pope Leo xiii sent an encyclical to America condemning (can you believe it) "Americanism" . This "heresy" had dared to say that morality and virtue is found more often in social actions or war than in silent undisturbed prayer. The Catholic culture put nuns and monks who don't go to war or participate much in society on a pedestal. This Pope made it Church teaching that virtue is gained more often in silent solitude than in any more social activity. Of all the weird things to make into a church teaching! How could this pope even know he was right? He couldn't. All he went on was his desire to stay in power and control the future of societies and their evolutions

Let me just clarify my previous post by saying that the Roman church considered abortion before 80 days to be simply akin to second degree murder because of Rome's idolatrous acceptance of Aristotle. With the morning after pill controversy Rome changed her mind and teachings. It's a hard issue for everyone for sure but it should be decided by science, not by what some Greek dude thought in ancient bygone days. It's a great example to give to traditional Catholics because now they are so pro-life in every respect and what I brought up in my last post is an embarrassment to them

Esoteric Christianity had to grow under threat of persecution from hierarchies. The hierarchy were for the status quo. Augustine had said Aristotle was right in saying humans first have a vegetable soul, then develops an animal soul, and only become human 40 to 80 days after conception. I am not saying I know for sure when a human becomes human, but it shouldn't be based on the authority and status of some ancient Greek thinker. The Roman Catechism of Trent even stated this doctrine of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Augustine and it was accepted until the past century. The Church trusted Aristotle without looking for science to prove it. They even condemned Galileo over scruples over the Bible. It was really the secular rationalists who did most for science over the past few centuries. Esoteric Christianity could dialogue and grow alongside rationalism, but there is nothing to say to a dogmatic Christian who accepts things on authority.

I was reading about the Nyaya school today and thought of this thread. They were an Indian group focused primarily on logic. Questions of reality and choices were put to the peripheral for them. Like modern formalism, they valued thought in itself and not particularly on how it relates to reality, whatever reality is lol. The Mimamsa school said language was primary and talked of language's intricacies without specifically caring, it seems, what it said about reality. Again, whatever that is

Heat energy was divine for the Stoics. The sun particularly. The Hindu idea of "tapas" in the stomach would have resonated with them. Stoics were materialists though while Hindus are usually idealist. Few have impugned the Stoics are moral grounds, therefore they seem to have been a pretty noble band of materialistic atheists. There are many such people around these days.

I think it was Schilling who said there is more wisdom is children books than in adult Scriptures

"Closed time-like curves" is Godel's phrase. This question is a physics AND philosophy question. You can't deal with the beginning of the universe in terms of only one or the other. A year ago I thought momentum from gravity was the essential movers, so that the universe was at the state of second "one", and descended from it's state into the motion of inflation. All time (seen as a spatial entity) was from the universe being at it's "top" state and descending, gaining energy from momentum. I've adjusted my position because physicists here in America are saying that time is most fundamental.

reverse destruction which would kind of lead to reverse time — antor

Reverse destruction was just an expression and the reverse of time is the cause, not something caused by destruction or whatever

The laws of physics are indifferent to time-reversal so what kind of language we apply to forward or backward in this case is only our purely linguistic decision and it has no impact on the reality of the situation. — antor

Sure, if you want to see it just in terms of math, instead of as it really happened.

Rene Gerard made the point that violence is as much connected to the religious impulse as to anything else. Modern society does not like to speak of violence much, but there is violence in all of us. Religion can control it, or abate it, depending on the situation. People who otherwise wouldn't be violent sometimes do violence under the influence of religion.

Just some thoughts I had

Are you familiar with the arguments of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Duns Scotus on how motion, causality, and change in the universe cannot to fully explained in physical terms? Answering their arguments is what a theory of everything is really about

The PBS digital series on spacetime is now saying, along with other video makers, that gravity is caused by time. If time runs in the opposite direction we think it does, it creates a circular situation wherein time (and thus gravity) is sufficient to understand the start of the universe

"Like beauty, however, what is negative and what is positive lies in the eye of the beholder, and what is negative for one may turn out to be another's supreme ideal" wrote a Buddhist once. Tolerance is evenness of mind

Thank you for inputting the quotes from Lao Tzu. I definitely didn't set up this thread for it to be one to be dominated by Christian thought. So, when I had a long quote from the Bible, about "the beast and 666' late at night I felt really unnerved. At a couple of points in my life this aspect of religious thinking made me begin to get unwell mentally. Even now, I do get a bit 'wobbly' if people start to preach to me.

I suppose that by starting this thread I was likely to get a certain amount of 'preaching'. Some of the responses have been good, but I am a bit disappointed that there has been less constructive dialogue. Apart from brief discussion about Buddhism, there has been little discussion about other religions. I am personally extremely interested in other views, ranging from Hinduism to Jainism. It could be that people on the forum do see religion mainly about the big divide between believing in God or not, in the conventional way. Or, it could be that people who fall outside of this, just avoid the religious threads. I was not looking for some kind of watered down discussion but some more diverse and independent thinking. — Jack Cummins

The Advaita Vedenta school is a non-dualist school of Indian thought that is very interesting. "Darshanas" means philosophy in India, while "Jnana" means knowledge gained through philosophy.

Some in Hinduism speak of the nirguna God, which has 3 attributes: sat (existence), chit (consciousness), and ananda (bliss). We are to merge with him. My reading of Buddhist theology says only ananda is real and that we must merge with bliss. However I got in trouble earlier for talking about Buddhism and "lack of substance", so..

The Hinduism that arose about the time of Jesus speaks of the saguna of God, the many infinite attributes. Everything from love-making to cooking is "like unto God", or really his essense (in a sense)

One last point:
The great Persian Sufi Mansur al-Hallaj was killed in Baghdad in 922 for uttering "I am the Truth" and since truth was one of the 99 names of God in Islam they took him to mean he thought he was God. Interestingly, Jesus may have been speaking merely about his immanent divinity as well, not that he was the Son of God in the way Christians understand that

Almost seventy percent of painters, dancers, poets have gone mad. — Anand-Haqq

I dont know if this is completely accurate, but some people have a more artistic side and often leads to mental illness. People who are too analytical and only seek truth often become mentally ill too. So we have to be careful against generalizations. The middle way is usually preferable, but everyone has to follow their own conscience. My conscience may tell me to do something you think is immoral, but I do not care, because it's my conscience, my business. That's the essence of Western culture

Great post. In the West the German romantic poets, inspired by Rousseau, were the ones who started saying "follow the heart and beauty and don't worry about all the questions of the head". I feel like in the face of criticism members of religions tend to say the same thing, but that is another topic

I only mentioned miracles because some believe life from non-life is a scientific impossibility

The problem is you sporadically post on a year old thread. Why not start a brand new one and get into discussion with those interested by some fresh ideas? You're kinda being "smarter than thou" in how you berate nominalists as if they were your children

Thanks guys.

The position of the anti-Darwin crowd is that genes cannot be combined efficiently any which way we like. They think each "kind" has a common ancestor pair and that getting from, say, a fish to a snake through evolution is impossible because the intermediate states are not feasible. They disagree with Dawkins on the number of genetic combinations that can function in Earth's environment
They go on to argue that the cell cannot arise from natural causes and this must be a miracle

I like poetry that is about time and space\location

The most important piece of writing in modern philosophy is, I believe, Hegel's short chapter titled Sense Certainty, which is the first chapter of his first book (1807). If someone were to get its meaning and feel it's meaning in everyday empirical life they need not read anymore of that difficult philosopher. There is no essence of red. To say otherwise won't let you grasp the questions of infinite duality and non-dualism. Saying "red is red" doesn't get you anywhere in my opinion

Ye if you have an article on compatabilism do link it for me. It's one of my favorite topics. I've had threads on it

I meant to write pinch, not punch lol. Autocorrect

I don't think the discussion among the Plato and Aristotle people about natures is relevant to gender questions. I'm a nominalist and a body just is what it is. I define a male as he who is masculine in their soul and normally becomes female in love. A female is the reverse. A transsexual or hermaphrodite is defined, not by their bodies, but by the masculine or feminine nature of their souls. I imagine that all people born with male bodies are male, ect. The female form, when compared to the male, is nature's model of the soul. Daoists have a practice where they punch the penis at one of several pplaces and force the semen back into their body (and into the bladder). This way they do not lose yang but instead get yin from their sex partner. Obviously they aren't fully turning on their anima but maybe it is a wise practice. I don't know anything however about Indian tantra

The image of the soul I hate the most is that of an ocean. That does not do it for me. I actually believe the human female form might symbolize the soul or act as it's physical analogue the most closely of all manifest objects

The

Talk to you latter

I like poetry when it relates to philosophy. Maybe you can make some connections for us between your poetry and what we discuss on this forum

Sleep well

Prakriti can be seen as yin and Purusa as yang. Indians call their unity Ayus. For most esoteric believers the body has gender but the soul at its higher levels is above gender distinction. This actually seems like a common Eastern idea

Energy: modern physics

Life force: Leibniz

Elan Vital: Bergson

Ashe: African philosophy

Qui: Confucian

Tao: Daoism

Prakriti+Purusha: India

These are all the same I suspect