Why are we wasting our time with this? — Herg

:up:

If we instead inquire why the individual ensconced within a modernist deterministic or postmodern relativist world performed the same action, we would be able to make use of the wider explanatory framework of the natural or discursive order in situating the causes of behavior. — Joshs

Some people are born bad. End of story.

8) "You must have intentionally brought it about that you had that nature N, in which case you must have existed already with a prior nature in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you had the nature N in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you are the way you now are …" — Strawson

This is an example of world class philosophical thinking?

You take my simple thought experiment (satire) far too literally as an exercise in relativity. :roll:

Pardon me if I've insulted math in anyway — Agent Smith

:wink:

Thanks. Pretty heady stuff for one unversed in physics . . . :cool:

Well, that's because some things can't be mathematized ... or can they? — Agent Smith

An open question, especially with regard to human behavior.

I botched up my question. Let me clarify by a simple thought experiment:

I start out driving along a straight road to a destination 1,000 miles away. To an external observer I drive at a steady 100 mph, with the distance between my front bumper and my destination shrinking at 100 mph. However, I was unaware that clocks tick slower in my car than outside stationary clocks, so at the end of one hour I pass the 200 mile road post, and think, wow, I am going really fast, twice the speed limit! But that’s not possible.

So, my destination is approaching my car at that speed. But that’s not possible either. So I surmise that I am driving at the speed limit and the distance between my car and my destination is shrinking that fast as well. Hence, the rate of change of the distance between car and destination is changing more than I originally assumed.

To an external observer the actual space between vehicle and destination is not contracting, but the distance between them is. It's a playground for metrics.

Putting your concept in mathematical terms involves special definitions and operations, not simple arithmetic. 1+1=2+1 no no no.

He would arrive quickly (depending on how close to "c" he's traveling) because of this shortening of the distance, — staticphoton

Well, that's a twist I was not aware of. :chin: — jgill

I'm still curious about this. If we measure interstellar distances in km and not light years, and our clock is ticking a bit slower as we advance to our destination explain how that actual distance may diminish from our perspective beyond that calculated by D=RT, thus having us arrive early? Is my question even valid in the context of relativity?

Can one overcome a born predisposition to harm others? Circumstances are strong factors, as are upbringing. In the end we are largely responsible for our actions.

. . . and now, after 5 minutes of deep thought, I believe in reincarnation. — Agent Smith

That's the spirit, AS!

This thread simply says people disagree on things and agree on things. Not sure where any of this is going.

Ineffability is a fluid concept. It has been years since I was stung by a bee. My friend was stung yesterday and said, "It hurts!". I can more or less empathize. Now, suppose I had been stung last week. When she tells me she has been stung and it hurts I can empathize much more strongly - the conveyed experience is less ineffable.

I watch an Olympic diver, then he talks with me and explains how he has to twist and turn as he falls. Intellectually, it all make sense, but the actual experience is ineffable to me.

Relating something sensual is a matter of empathizing. Which shifts the focus away from the word "ineffable".

But this thread is going to 1,000 posts no matter what. :roll:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are. — Sargon

A meaningless statement. "The way you are" is too vague.

The whole thing sounds like a campaign slogan for someone running for District Attorney of Las Angeles.

I'm more interested in the voyage itself. Suppose the planet is 100 light years away from Earth and the ship approaches 95% of light speed fairly quickly. Then time dilation will slow the passage of time aboard ship compared to that on Earth, but it was mentioned (speculated) in another thread that the distance the ship has to travel shrinks, so how long aboard ship would it take? How many years would have passed on Earth?

But this is a diversion from the OP. Ignore if you wish. :cool:

the critical question of whether Deleuze's work on calculus should be taken as a starting point for his work on time — Joshs

Reference? Thx.

The closest I can think of is what people sometimes say about willing something to happen. The odd thing is, they usually say that when they can’t actually bring it about. — Ludwig V

In certain meditative states one comes alive as pure will. I suspect this is considered a distraction in Zen, but in a type of lucid dreaming it is exhilarating. To experience will in isolation, unhindered by physical restraints, gives one a deeper appreciation of its role in one's life, its power to cause change.

I know, this is not philosophical - but neither is will.

How would you have approached the subject if you were consulted by Bentham? — Agent Smith

I would suggest he consult with a statistician or data analyst and do surveys and polls or watch human behavior and see where that might take him. Applying hard math to a soft problem is usually ill-advised. :cool:

Jeremy, the great Bentham, father of utilitarianism, proposed a simple mathematical formula called the felicific calculus — Agent Smith

It's simplistic arithmetic with poorly defined variables. I wonder if it's used in economics, the Dismal Science? Tononi's Phi function is a far more recent and much more complicated attempt to apply math to loose or badly understood features of existence, like how much consciousness might a certain stone possess? The level of sophistication of the latter compared to the former is staggering, but even so not convincing.

My own brief exposure to my math used as a tool in the social sciences is a recent paper on decision making in groups, where a result in the arid but highly sophisticated realm of complex analysis was appropriated and rephrased in those psychological terms, to questionable ends.

Logical positvism: the only truths are either mathematical or empirical. All other kinds of truth are 'meaningless.' — jasonm

Empirical or logical proof, rather than mathematics, which has a narrower scope.

Welcome back, buddy. Nice photograph.



:up:

This is going nowhere. — Banno

But creeping along in a pleasing cadence. :nerd:

He would arrive quickly (depending on how close to "c" he's traveling) because of this shortening of the distance, — staticphoton

Well, that's a twist I was not aware of. :chin:

Isn't it better just to assume that everything is potentially intelligible to the human mind, and keep us trying to figure it all out? — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

Is there any hypothetical way an object can travel in all directions at the same time? — TiredThinker

Big Bang?

I think this needs a thread elucidating this important train of thought. — jgill

I already did that for another of your stray ideas, achieving nothing. — Banno

As you well should. A joke. :cool:

To achieve nothing on TPF is refreshingly consistent. :wink:

That's why I said earlier in the thread, that we apply mathematics to the ineffable (what we cannot talk about because we have no conception of). Then through the application of math we produce an understanding, conceptualize, and start being able to talk about what was prior to this, ineffable. — Metaphysician Undercover

This from a gentleman who questions 1+1=2 is a surprise. Assuming MU is not being sarcastic, there is value in his observation. Through math we gradually approach a moment of conceptualization, where the mantle of mathematics slips away, revealing a new level of reality that slowly becomes understandable and even effable.

This seemingly has happened when a rare mathematician claims to visualize objects in four dimensions. William Thurston I seem to recall made that claim. He suffered from a vision disorder as a child and that might have had an unexpected effect. Who knows?

But we do talk about mountains, and hence they are not ineffable. — Banno

It doesn't get more astute than this. Exceeds all expectations of a mole hill. :smile:

Time can be thought of as "linear" in a general sense, if not the math definition. Each tick of the clock moves us in a regular sense along a time line. I don't see any kind of circularity in the passage of time, other than repeated societal behaviors, like wars. Time itself cannot be manipulated except in the extreme instances of time dilation. Or at least it appears that way.

Nowadays, most physicists seem to be comfortable with the abstruse math (e.g. imaginary numbers) of quantum weirdness, but they still find the philosophical implications untenable & unbelievable. — Gnomon

Complex numbers and complex analysis, for one thing, simplify wave equations due to Euler's formula:
${{e}^{i\theta }}=\sin \theta +i\cos \theta$.

You might want to check out Berkeley philosopher Alva Noe for a link between Husserlian phenomenology and contemporary perceptual science. — Joshs

Makes sense. Thanks.

So with those three statuses must time then be linear? — TiredThinker

Neither linear nor non-linear. It simply exists as an integral part of spacetime. It can be played with, however: Complex and Distorted Time

the firm footing for science in transcendental subjectivity, — Joshs

Transcendental consciousness is an absolute subjectivity that cannot be an object and. cannot be given reflectively. Because it can never be an object, one cannot say. anything about it or characterize it.

Ineffable :cool:

How many scientists have even heard or read of this?

. . . . . fat person being pitched over the edge by a philosopher who unluckily and perhaps mistakenly holds the view that it's the right thing to do. — Cuthbert

I think this needs a thread elucidating this important train of thought. Why might a philosopher think this is the right thing to do? If she is an analytic type it could make sense, provided she is also into foundations of mathematics. But if she be in ethics, then that is a whole other can of worms!

Ta Da !!! Now, officially, there are new Biggest and Smallest Named Numbers.

Here comes . . . . . . Zepto !

:nerd:

Classical Realism is just more intuitive & familiar, than weird Quantum Idealism. Classical Atomism remains more sensible than the abstract Quantum notion of mathematical Fields forming the foundation of Physics — Gnomon

That's true. I grew up with little BBs circling a big BB, which was easy to visualize - what happens at cosmic scales happens at atomic scales. Now, although I have worked with mathematical vector fields, the notion of a wave rippling through emptiness is challenging.

Maybe one of these science-themed articles by non-scientists will spur a breakthrough in hard science. That would be refreshing.

Surely you jest.

All the physicists at this forum got banned for flaming — Enrique

Kenosha Kid is still a member. But has gone on an extended holiday. :smile:

"Legitimate physicists" tend to cling closely to Classical Newtonian Science, and studiously avoid feckless Philosophy, lest they be accused of taboo woo-woo. — Gnomon

Would you find quantum physicists doing that? Clinging to Newtonian ideas?

I recall two PhD physicists here, one of which, @Kenosha Kid, advanced transactional theory, which has time moving both forward and backward. Roll over Sir Isaak!

I can't recall who the other one was, but perhaps a graduate of an old alma mater of mine, Georgia Tech.

(My sole personal discovery about QM was that the Schrödinger equation is a hyped-up version of the simple fact from elementary calculus that a rate of change can vary with amount. )

I learned a new word: giveness. :cool:

or do we -- as the seeming suggests -- actually feel something that others feel sometimes? — Moliere

Of course we do at times. Sometimes when a TV character I admire weeps I begin to empathize and feel a tear coming on. Partly that's old age. But watching a gymnast pull from a hang to a handstand on the still rings is something I can feel better than the casual spectator because of past experience. It's the talking about these things that fails to convey a full event.

I see why very few legitimate physicists are on TPF, even though they might be philosophical physicists.

Of course, they have their own forums.

No wonder anglo American philosophy is such a dead end, so busy trying to squeeze meaning our of ordinary language — Constance

To a person who has limited knowledge of formal philosophy, this describes what seems to be going on in this thread.