However, I think that the point which you make about the role of the observer, which is recognised in the physics of relativity is extremely important, and I do wonder to what extent this ideas has been incorporated as a basis, or aspect, of the underlying premises of philosophy. — Jack Cummins
I am really saying that people may think that they don't need to think about the big questions, but I am not convinced that we have reached that deadend completely. — Jack Cummins
By asymmetric causality, I am referring to either the belief or definition of causality such that causes come before their effects. This is a physically problematic assumption due to the fact that the microphysical laws are temporally symmetric. — sime
Spot on. Mass and mind do not seem to be related in this way. As if we could measure the mass of your love for your mother. — Banno
Ayer argues that metaphysics is about speculation, and that is its limitation. He suggests that he is not trying to say that people should not make speculations, or be discouraged from having certain beliefs, such as believing in God, but that they present difficulties in arguing for them as metaphysical realities because they cannot be spoken of as definite facts. I think that his argument does come into play in the whole process of asking metaphysical questions. — Jack Cummins
What are the arguments for and against the responsibility that individuals might be thought to bear to accept a Covid 19 vaccine? What are the arguments for and against the right that individuals might be thought to enjoy to refuse a Covid 19 vaccine? — Janus
But, I do think that many people, in general, see philosophy as a rather abstract and futile activity, but it would be interesting if someone were able to provide evidence of such opinion and I am not able to do so at present. — Jack Cummins
So lock it down! Except for the people that don't eh. That's ok because it would be icky if they lockdown, because that would be an actual lockdown and no one wants to pay the price on that eh.
That is why the lockdown failed and will always fail: Exceptions are made because society is too weak to do it right. therefore, since it will not be done right, there is no purpose doing it at all. Unless the plan is to draw it out unreasonably, then we are on the right path for sure. — Book273
Three people believed to have been stranded on an uninhabited island in the Bahamas for 33 days have been rescued, the US Coast Guard says.
"Unfortunately we didn't have any fluent Spanish speakers but in my broken Spanish I was able to discern that they were from Cuba and....
...only fled the workers paradise because equality is such a good basis for an economic system, they had become overwhelmed with happiness!
Ya think? — counterpunch
That's over with. This is 2021 and you need to move on. — synthesis
Are you telling me that you have bought into the narrative that everybody who is successful is so because they were born into it? — synthesis
This isn't 18th and 19th century Europe. — synthesis
I've had fun dabbling in simple vector fields in the complex plane, but quantum fields are quite a bit more complicated, even with a modest background in functional analysis. My hat's off to you guys. :cool: — jgill
:up: Yup, with decorative physical constants: in other words, we're measuring it wrong!it really all boils down to time and distance. — Pfhorrest
Naturalism excludes God as a matter of principle. The mistake is to then believe that science has disproved the substance of such a belief, when in practice it has simply excluded it. — Wayfarer
You know that when Lemaître initially published his 'Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom', it was widely resisted for a long time because it seemed to suggest a creation from nothing. — Wayfarer
No, I believe this is common sense. — synthesis
People who are successful are so because they have the motivation to be such. — synthesis
Even if you thought it to be advantageous, there is no way to equalize outcome. — synthesis
The more people try, the worse things get. What you can do is maximize opportunity and allow nature to take its course. — synthesis
Thinking that any particular outcome should be lands you in the "playing God" category. — synthesis
Firstly on capitalism: Capitalism is based on supply and demand. The more people who want a specific item the more valuable that item is at X quantity. Should the quantity increase (supply) the value lowers. Should demand (population desiring said Product) increase at a fixed X quantity then again the value increases (cost).
This is actually a negative feedback loop that regulates the price of products. — Benj96
Let’s imagine everyone is made middle class (No poor and no rich) then demand greatly increases (because everyone has money to afford something) which increases the value of the product: this value increase leads to capitalising and the reemergence of a wealthy class as well as simultaneously leaving some unable to afford it (poor). — Benj96
So I would imagine that is the Global capitalist system escalates then there will be a cultural shift back to local Independent products; think knitting your own clothing, Ceramics, home cultivation of produce, Crafting furniture, buying locally farmed produce, reusing, upcycling, etc in small groups. — Benj96
How can a diffuse wave interfere with itself to form a single particle on the screen? — Enrique
How the electron got from a field to a point is called the measurement problem, and different solutions to the measurement problem have yielded different interpretations of quantum mechanics. The oldest successful interpretation was the Copenhagen interpretation which states that, upon measurement, the electron wavefunction collapses probabilistically to a single position, the probability given by the absolute square of the wavefunction (the Born rule).
This idea of the absolute square is important. It is how we get from the non-physical wavefunction to a real thing, even as abstract as probability. Why is the wavefunction non-physical? Because it has real and imaginary components: u = Re{u} + i*Im{u}, and nothing observed in nature has this feature. The absolute square of the wavefunction is real, and is obtained by multiplying the wavefunction by its complex conjugate u* = Re{u} - i*Im{u} (note the minus sign). Remembering that i*i = -1, you can see for yourself this is real. We'll come back to this.
There are other probabilistic interpretations, and also some deterministic ones, such as Bohmian mechanics, wherein the electron always has a single-valued position and momentum (hidden variables), and Many-worlds interpretation in which the wavefunction does not collapse but, thanks to the mathematical rules of entanglement, you can never have a term in the wavefunction in which the electron hit the screen at position y but you observed it at position y′≠y. — Kenosha Kid
Again, there's a difference between creduiity or gullibility and warranted belief. Everyone has beliefs - even (or especially!) those who claim to have no beliefs, because, for them, non-belief becomes a normative guide, but non-belief turns out to have content of its own. — Wayfarer
But a belief in God, falling short of certainty, is not open to the same objection. A belief may be reasonable, though false. If two oncologists tell you that your tumour is benign, then your belief that it is benign is a reasonable belief even if, sadly, it is false.
So Dawkins is our target. This is becoming a habit. — Banno
Not all fanaticism is religious fanaticism, and I
found unconvincing Dawkins attempt to show that Hitler was a closet Catholic
In terms of what it can compel people to do. There have been many evils committed in the name of religion. — Wayfarer
Probably involves mathematical parameters that are difficult to explain in a simple message board post. Not a physicist, but maybe I'll take a look at it. — Enrique
What is the evidence that a single emitted electron is a wave spanning multiple slits, and does this evidence obtain for molecules also? — Enrique
No. I'm talking about actually being certain about one's sense of right and wrong. I'm talking about being certain that A is morally right, and that B is morally wrong. — baker
I'm not aware of any direct evidence that the particle travels through both slits simultaneously as a wave, then recombines into a particle. It might be the case for photons while not for much more massive particles — Enrique
what could possibly be the mechanism? — Enrique
Sorry but I remain unconvinced by your objection. Please bear with me. Which is simpler, a brain or a conscious brain? Doesn't matter if it's physical or not (no petitio principii)? — TheMadFool
IF physicalism is true THEN p-zombies are impossible. — TheMadFool
That interpretation doesn't make sense to me. It fails to account for why a detector at one of the double slits only registers a particle half the time, nor the apparent randomness of localized absorber contact amongst even dozens of particles. — Enrique
It's said or the argument goes that if p-zombies are possible physicalism is false. — TheMadFool
P-zombies are simpler than normal humans for they're missing consciousness. That should mean that since humans are not only possible but also real, p-zombies should also be possible. — TheMadFool
Google definition of "complex": consisting of many different and connected parts.. — TheMadFool
But this seems kind of like question begging does it not? — Elliot Fischer
Success in life is about getting your act together by taking responsibility for your own actions and refusing to engage in the blame game. — synthesis
The God delusion is an awful book and is not at all representative of actual atheology. If your interested in real responses to proper formulations of the OA, look towards actual atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy for example. — Elliot Fischer
I do think there'd always be a 'right' answer though, but that's perhaps because of the way I'm using 'right'. I'm using it more like in game theory, than in ethics. — Isaac
Dualism vs Monism — Gary Enfield
I have also wondered about this, and and if we recognise the mathematical element, and the Deterministic view that this must intrinsically come from the 'chemistry' that it represents, then there is a fundamental question about how chaos, without order and therefore without chemistry, was able to do this? — Gary Enfield