is there a philosophy — a "metaphysics" — that goes beyond what the math and the data support? And, if such background metaphysics exist, could it be wrong even if the theory itself is right in terms of experiments and data?
This question is at the heart of a fascinating book I've been reading called The Physicist and the Philosopher by Jimena Canales. It's a story about Albert Einstein (who needs no introduction) and Henri Bergson (who probably does). — Adam Frank
So what do you make of this, Wayfarer? We might agree that we each experience different events within time; but that is not the same as each experiencing time differently. Now if this were true, and we do experience time differently, how could this be discussed? IS the question different to "We each experience colour differently from others and within our own lives".We each experience time differently from others and within our own lives. — Rich
I will not pay my fine, your honour; for you see, there are no laws. And further, 3:45 on the 3rd January is an instant; my car could not have traveled any distance during that instant; and was therefore stationary, and certainly not doing 100 in an 80 zone!
The unfolding of our experiences happens within time as set out by physicist. — Banno
Now if this were true, and we do experience time differently, how could this be discussed? — Banno
I have and image of Rich in court, objecting to his speeding fine:
I will not pay my fine, your honour; for you see, there are no laws. And further, 3:45 on the 3rd January is an instant; my car could not have traveled any distance at that instant; and was therefore stationary, and certainly not doing 100 in an 80 zone! — Banno
]what do you make of this, Wayfarer? We might agree that we each experience different events within time; but that is not the same as each experiencing time differently. Now if this were true, and we do experience time differently, how could this be discussed? — Banno
Facts are facts, a speeding ticket or the boiling point of water or the atomic weight of lead are what they are. — Wayfarer
That is what you don't understand. Approximations are not facts. They are merely observations with some consensus - but sometimes not. — Rich
You think nobody has realised this before? If you actually study the Greeks, you would see that they were utterly dedicated to understanding the question of 'how do we know what anything actually is?' The Parmenides, which is the beginning of the Western metaphysical tradition, and then the subsequent dialectic of being and becoming that developed out of that, over centuries, really went into these questions in great depth. You're simply assuming the role of a Protagoras (although he was a pro!) — Wayfarer
But there is still a sense in which the mind itself furnishes the background within which all such judgements are made. — Wayfarer
Approximations and consensus observations are not facts. — Rich
the table is 1000mm give or take 3 mm wide. — Banno
You mean because I don't buy into your "facts" or your Laws? — Rich
u use the rules of English, no problem — Banno
you argue against the very physics that you are obligated by reality to follow. — Banno
to claiming laws are mere consensus...There is no LAW. — Rich
Indeed, your point does keep changing.language is formed by consensus, so you keep making my point - and it keeps changing. — Rich
IS this saying anything more or distinct from "we each experience different events"? If so, what?We each experience time differently from others and within our own lives. — Rich
Whereas, I think what you are describing is ‘fear of religion’. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.