As to causation; it is axiomatic just because events cannot be understood non-causally. — Janus
mathematically speaking, consider " t " to be Plank time , wouldn't t/2 be shorter than that. — Wittgenstein
I dont think science will have much of a problem with regards to the confusion behind the cause as scientists have some effective method of ruling out many causes to focus on the cause which is essential. — Wittgenstein
How could one compare one model of the OR with any other. — Coben
But if scientists can't approach the OR at all, then presumably he can't either. So why would any model be better than any other? How does he get a model of the OR? — Coben
My point was that scientists definitely consider themselves to be finding out things about objective reality. — Coben
My so-called model of OR is that we - all humans, past, present and future - know nothing of it, other than that is exists. Not really worthy of the term "model", is it? :wink: More of a non-model, really. It is simply an acknowledgement of our inability to obtain - by any means - Objective knowledge. — Pattern-chaser
other people, causation, reality, other people's perception, those are all part of the OR. — Coben
My personal approach is that OR is modeled by observing, perceiving, and measuring AR. — Noah Te Stroete
..and if you are a brain in a vat? Would you not then be modelling the 'reality' the vat-maintainers send to you? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
This is over my head. I suspect I’m not the only one confused about it, though. — Noah Te Stroete
Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.
Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future". 1 — E. R. Dougherty
Nature is then no longer seen as clockwork, but only as a ‘possibility gestalt’, the whole world occurring anew each moment; however, the deeper reality from which the world arises, in each case, acts as a unity in the sense of an indivisible ‘potentiality’, which can perhaps realize itself in many possible ways, it not being a strict sum of the partial states. — PoeticUniverse
.... closer look reveals that determinism and predictability are very different notions. In
particular, in recent decades chaos theory has highlighted that deterministic systems can be
unpredictable in various different ways.
I think it is more like nothing can happen in less than plank time that has any meaning in the current theoretical framework of physics.I think the Planck time is the time it takes for something travelling at the speed of light to traverse the Planck length. From this we reason that nothing can happen in a time less than the Planck time. I think I have that right, but I'm open to correction
Yes, l think that was my point. For example when deriving a equation, say PV=nRT. Physicist will make certain assumptions which will simplify the model. Like these assumptions which can be false in certain cases.Are you saying that scientists simply filter out the lesser contributors to cause so that they can focus on just the one (even if it is the biggest one)? Ignoring and 'simplifying' reality in favour of calculability (if that's a word)? Perhaps I have misunderstood?
Are you saying that scientists simply filter out the lesser contributors to cause so that they can focus on just the one (even if it is the biggest one)?
...
Yes, l think that was my point. — Wittgenstein
An absolute freedom is absurd since everyone interacts with the sense data provided from the world. — Wittgenstein
:ok: l agree that it works in only one way but what is that way ?mean we can't avoid the way the world works just because, with our free will, we decided it should work in some other way.
I never implied that it was your stance, l was just going about an extreme form of determinism.Did I just cover that, in what I said above?
What do you mean by " freedom " in freedom to act ? — Wittgenstein
l agree that it works in only one way but what is that way ? — Wittgenstein
Since we are constrained by the world, how does that interfere with our freedom ?The freedom to do as we wish, constrained only by the world, and the way it is, and the way it behaves. So long as we accept that we can't change the world (with some minor exceptions), we can act as we wish within that world.
Can you explain objective reality and subjective reality as a concept, l don't really know what's going on here. :grin:The way it is. Just as Objective Reality is that which actually is, so the world, expressed in a rather less rigorous way, is what it is. It follows no laws, and acknowledges no constraints. It just is. So the way of the world is ... the way of the world. The way of the Tao, perhaps. :wink:
This reminds me of the opening lines of tractatus logico philosophicus.Objective Reality is the absolute reality; it is what is, and that's all there is to it. It's the view generally adopted by analytic philosophers, sciencists, and the like. It's daft because we cannot knowingly access Objective knowledge, but that's part of another discussion, not this one
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.