The problems of philosophy are deep problems. They've been argued about for millenia. I appreciate that you're actually trying to engage with them, but you're making it difficult. You're starting from an attitude of common-sense realism - there's no point disputing that, because it is self-evident. Then you're saying 'so why shouldn't I simply maintain that view?' It's very close to a chip on the shoulder, ameliorated by the fact that I think you have a genuine interest in the question, almost in spite of yourself.
I referred to Kant, because my view is that in terms of the subject of philosophy, Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' is the key book of the age. Yes, it's difficult, contentious, and the cause of many arguments, but it's a hard problem, and Kant's analysis of it is pivotal - even now, even after all the subsequent discoveries (and contrary to what a lot of people here think).
The article I linked to makes a point about 'the role of the observer' in physics. Now I bring that up for a very specific reason. Common-sense realism would generally like to leave the whole issue of the role of the observer out of the picture. As far as common-sense realism is concerned, the world simply is the way it is, whether anyone's there or not. But 20th century physics encountered problems which throws that whole assumption into question. That was the 'observer problem' or 'the measurement problem', which is still an open question.
Now I don't want to steer the thread in that direction, either, other than to observe that it is a very profound issue which has baffled very many great minds. At the very least, I think an attitude of bafflement, rather than complacency, is a better place to be, for a philosopher. I think we ought not to have the sense that the world isn't a mystery (sorry for the double negative). The philosopher's task is to 'wonder at what most think ordinary'. Not 'to wonder why anyone would do that'. — Wayfarer
That works....interpret the meaning of it. You said you could conceive an unconceivable object. I’ve been wondering ever since how I would do that. It might be so simple I just looked right over the top of it....dunno. — Mww
Oh dear. We fundamentally disagree on so much. — S
OK. You’re just saying there is a condition where there are possible objects yet unthought. If that’s right, then I can say, sure, there’s millions of things I haven’t thought yet. And right now, this minute, every damn one of them is immersed in a hypothetical scenario. — Mww
Still, again, if that’s right, I can’t call any of those things a rock, for to formally name an object presupposes its conception. — Mww
Finger/moon.....funny. I know for a fact my finger isn’t green cheese. — Mww
Per part two: "Rock" as a sound or any other way delineated or detected is information attempting to be transmitted. The sound or word has meaning and existence as long as their is a least one conscious being left to understand it. — Aadee
I'm way ahead of you. — Metaphysician Undercover
Here's why the op is nonsensical S. The human being has a very particular temporal perspective. We don't see events which are a picosecond in length, and we don't see events which are a billion years long. We live at this particular time and we only see things within a very limited temporal perspective. If human beings are removed, then the human temporal perspective is removed. But your op talks as if you could remove human beings, yet maintain the human temporal perspective. Don't you think that's nonsense? What would maintain the human temporal perspective when there is no human beings? — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course it's not nonsense on its own terms. It's only so as a consequence of you begging the question once again. — S
Because it leads to rocks which suddenly cease to exist the very nanosecond that we all would. Because it can't plausibly explain the world, because it can't explain the world before and after we existed. Did rocks and everything else like them just suddenly spring into existence the very nanosecond that we did?
Do you find that convincing? Or, like me, do you find it way more convincing that that there's something wrong with the premises which lead us here? — S
I'm just trying to understand which of my premises you disagree with, and why you think it's a matter of begging the question. Then we might be able to discuss our differences on that particular issue. Is it my premise that the human temporal perspective is very specific, and unique to the human being, or is it my premise that "an hour" is a measurement of time dependent on the human temporal perspective, or both? And, please give me some indication of the fault or faults you see in the premise or premises which you disagree with.
You haven't yet told me exactly what it is that you disagree with, and what it is that I am claiming which you think is "begging the question". — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you remember ages ago when I mentioned units of measurement? An hour is a unit of measurement. — S
Yes I remember this. Then you went on to talk about rules, and Terrapin explained that rules are human conventions. — Metaphysician Undercover
So I thought you dismissed this line of thought. These are two different ways of using "hour". I interpreted "an hour" in your thought experiment as something measured, that's what you were insisting, "an hour" in relation to passing time, is something objective.' Now you claim to have used "an hour" as a unit of measurement. This means it is a standard, a convention for the act of measuring. After all the people die, how does "an hour", as a standard for measuring, relate to physical existence? It's just as nonsensical this way, as it is the other way. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are you familiar with relativity theory. The meaning of "an hour" relative to physical existence is dependent on one's frame of reference. As a unit of measurement, "an hour" must be within the context of a frame of reference to have any meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then I would have explained why I consider that to be an irrelevant point. Can you think of why I might consider that point to be irrelevant? Or do I have to explain it? — S
Why on earth would you assume that I interpret stuff like that in a manner implying subjective dependency? This is the very problem.
I don't do that. I call an hour a unit of measurement, because that's what it is, and I don't interpret stuff like that in your manner which would obviously lead me to contradiction. That's obvious, surely. I mean, come on. Really?
If it's a standard, I claim that it's an objective standard. And that's perfectly consistent with my position, and with my usage of language.
And don't even think about misinterpreting "standard" as a judgement or anything of that sort. Ask if you're not sure of something, don't just assume, or at least try to apply the very minimum requirements of being charitable in your assumptions. Don't assume that I'm a bloody idiot whose saying something which is an obvious contradiction, like that something which requires a subject doesn't require a subject.
With all due respect, I think you have a lot to learn about logic, and you should be grateful for the effort I'm putting in and my patience. — S
You keep insisting that it's irrelevant, but your thought experiment references "an hour" after all human beings have died. So it's very relevant. We need to know how "an hour" fits into this scenario of no living human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover
How is "a standard" which is used in the practise of measurement figure into your scenario of no living human beings? Your thought experiment scenario describes the existence of a standard, "an hour" after all humans are dead. How is that standard meaningful if there are no humans to use it in the act of measuring. — Metaphysician Undercover
The reason I consider the point that rules are human conventions to be irrelevant is because it is of no logical relevance to my argument. I have accepted that humans set language rules. This misses the point, because I argue that there's no justified reason for believing that the rules would cease to apply. They are a human convention only in some sense along the lines that humans come up with them. — S
What do you want to know about my position regarding how an hour could pass that I haven't already said? Why should I repeat myself over and over again at your request? Why didn't you pay sufficient attention the first, second, and third time that I've explained it? — S
So would it be used? No. Would it apply? Yes. — S
Would there be linguistic meaning? Yes. Would the meaning be understood? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to understand the meaning. Would the meaning be meaningful to anyone? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to find the meaning meaningful. Why would it be otherwise? Cue the never ending circle of you begging the question again without realising the error in what you're doing. — S
People apply standards of measurement in their acts of measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover
The rules do not apply themselves. So "an hour", as a standard of measurement cannot apply itself, and measure an hour, after all the people are dead. — Metaphysician Undercover
I want you to explain how a standard of measurement applies without someone applying it. To me, that's quite obviously nonsensical. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the length of the wall is two metres, then the length of the wall is two metres. — S
Whether anyone has measured the wall to find out that it's two metres in length is completely irrelevant. — S
The hour doesn't need to be measured for it to pass. — S
Don't you see that it would be nonsensical to say that the wall is two metres if it hasn't been measured to be two metres? — Metaphysician Undercover
So you’re a realist. I’m sorry, does it hurt? They got remedies for that these days, ya know. — Mww
So what kind of realist are you? Scientific realist? Metaphysical realist? — Mww
Describe the world in your own words. — Mww
.”However I don’t know what you mean by “There is…” “— Michael Ossipoff
.
Yes you do, and it's self-explanatory.
.”A metaphysical or ontological question or statement is meaningless if it uses one or more terms that aren’t metaphysically or ontologically defined.”— Michael Ossipoff
.
Poppycock. You know the meaning of "there" and you know the meaning of "is" and you know the meaning of "there is", as in "there is a rock".
.Are you seriously going to pretend otherwise?
.Obviously, if you know the meaning, then there is a meaning there, otherwise you couldn't know it.
.What you're doing amounts to a performative contradiction and is therefore self-defeating. We start from the fact that you understand what I'm saying…
Translation:
“I can’t define it.” — Michael Ossipoff
1. You point to a cabinet whose contents are unknown, and say “Is a rock there?” — Michael Ossipoff
2. Or you say “Is there the rock that I referred to, after everyone dies?”. (“Exists that rock?”) — Michael Ossipoff
Those are two entirely different kinds of question, and “There is…” is being used entirely differently, with a different meaning. (..an unknown or absent meaning, in #2) — Michael Ossipoff
As you meant it when you asked if there still is that rock after everyone has died, “There is” means “Exists”.
.
“Exists that rock, after everyone has died?” accurately translates your question.
.
It’s a matter of whether or not you can define “Exist”. — Michael Ossipoff
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.