How is this not the 4D object moving wrt the 4D universe (an idea you reject)? The temporal axis is the fourth dimension. — Luke
Is it a 3D or a 4D object that moves? — Luke
Of course, factors like the circumstance, our appetite, and our reason, all influence the will towards a decision; but they cannot compel the will to the decision if the will is truly free — Samuel Lacrampe
No more so than notions of objective reality, which you support in your support of natural science. — Pfhorrest
Okay, so you meant capital-R "Rationalism" as in the anti-empirical philosophical movement containing people like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, not just common-noun rationalism as in asking for reasons to (dis)believe things and not just obeying orthodoxy on faith. No disagreement there then. — Pfhorrest
I'm willing to stipulate that Susskind and others (Penrose for sure) have theories positing and endless sequence of universes before the big bang. — fishfry
"Past eternal but not bounded?" Sorry that doesn't make a lot of sense. — fishfry
You have said that the 4D object does "sometimes move". Since you reject "the idea that the 4D object moves wrt the 4D universe", then with respect to what universe (3D? 5D?) does the 4D object "sometimes move"? — Luke
If the objects at t and t' are different, then you are no longer talking about the motion of a single object from t to t'. — Luke
2 + 2 is definitely equal to 4 — tilda-psychist
You'll have to provide a link for the absurd (and false) claim that there is a reputable theory of physics positing an infinite past. — fishfry
nationalism, moral objectivity, populism, anthropocentrism, rationalism, religion, and political ideology.
— Kenosha Kid
Two of these things are not like the others. — Pfhorrest
In Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science (1994), the scientists Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt accused postmodernists of anti-intellectualism, presented the shortcomings of relativism, and suggested that postmodernists knew little about the scientific theories they criticized and practiced poor scholarship for political reasons. The authors insist that the "science critics" misunderstood the theoretical approaches they criticized, given their "caricature, misreading, and condescension, [rather] than argument".
These are technicalities and I cannot get into them because it is not my field, but I can only say I did a research and I haven't found flaws with pilot wave. I did find many with GR though. My point is that there are many different opinions, but at the end of the day common-sense and logic will prevail. GR or probabilistic QM are very against common-sense and logic. — Eugen
It did. And of course a thing cannot be in 2 places at once and it doesn't "care" about being observed or not. — Eugen
Pilot wave has no empirical flaws and it contradicts both GR and probabilistic QM. — Eugen
Pilot wave has no empirical flaws and it contradicts both GR and probabilistic QM. — Eugen
I think it is unfair to say that postmodernism resulted in a new Grand Narrative, but rather comprises a whole slew of critiques of the modern narrative. — Adam's Off Ox
I am sure it is a case where many mistakes bring you to the correct answer. It is simply illogic and against common sense and reality cannot be like this. — Eugen
GR is based on the idealistic thought that the universe revolves around the observer. — Eugen
GR is so illogic. E.g. if you live on Mars and work in London, if you wanna travel by the speed of light (in order to arrive earlier) you have to leave home earlier, which is contrary to all daily empirical tests. So this is an empirical counter-argument. GR is false! — Eugen
I am not a sciebtist, but I have seen different plausible variants. You can check on YT. But even if we didn't have alternatives, I don't think believing in absurd things like time curvature is a good way to do science. Time is like probabilities - just a human tool. — Eugen
There are many ways in which you could reach the same result. — Eugen
Scientists have to accept that Einsten was at best a cool dude, but not a god, and he was simply wrong. — Eugen
It’s terrible right! And, I’m still a sucker for it esp. if it’s found in somewhere generally respectable like the Guardian or NYTimes. I think nutritional science has to be the most frustrating when journalism gets a hold of it. The verdict on eggs, alcohol, coffee, etc switches every 6 months to two years often in the same newspaper or website but when you go to the original source the difference in the findings are not so stark. Scientific articles really need to be made public (ie not be put behind a paywall). — Kmaca
I find it quite stupid and dishonest myself. — Kenosha Kid
Dennett really does deny that the first-person nature of lived experience is real. What he says it is, is the consequence of billons of unconscious cellular interactions that give rise to the illusion of first-person consciousness, which is ultimately devoid of anything personal, as such. Only molecules are real, and we are the consequence of the collective action of their ‘unconscious competence’.
It is, as Nagel says in that review, preposterous. In fact, if Dennett has done a service to philosophy, it is in ably demonstrating, across the span of an entire career, what a preposterous claim ‘eliminativism’ amounts to. — Wayfarer
I have the same problem when I’m reading a science article in a newspaper or general website. The journalists covering science usually covers a finding in a much more interesting, controversial way to generate clicks than the original finding. — Kmaca
Does that mean the PoMo movement has resulted in driving the political Left and Right farther apart? I hadn't thought of the cynical "fake news" notion as a reaction to Postmodern pushing from the Left. :chin: — Gnomon
Thanks, though from looking at the opinions of other physicists on the matter these past few hours, it doesn't seem like the whole concept of "speed through spacetime" is a popular way of describing things, with alot of people blaming Brian Greene for the concept. — Mr Bee
Objectivity is just the absence of bias, as subjectivity is bias. If the two of you have shared experiences to refer to, then that is all you need for objectivity enough for the two of you. And total objectivity is just the limit of that process: what accounting for more and more sharable experiences converges toward. We can’t ever finish that process, but there being an objective truth just means that that process converges toward something. — Pfhorrest
Things like mortgages? — Banno
Can you clarify what "movement" means here? Certainly can't mean change in spatial location with respect to time since we are talking about "motion" through time. Of course one can define it in terms of a fifth dimension which objects move with respect to, but there are none beyond those of spacetime that I am aware. It seems like you're using it in a different sense than is normally used. — Mr Bee
It's the view eviscerated in the first part of Philosophical Investigations. — Banno
What does this mean?
Are you saying that when you look at the quote above, you are not seeing the same thing as I see? But there is a clear sens ein which wht I quoted above is what you wrote, so how could that be? — Banno
I think one can act out one's philosophy. — unenlightened
Do you actually though? I don't mean to say you have a standard philosophical position on the matter, but don't you have conceptual insight/imagination that you apply to the thing to interpret it? Like an imaginative background of the calculation. — fdrake
These guys are anti-materialists. The problem is those who deny consciousness are materialists. — Eugen