Scientists have defined a "point particle" as a dimensionless element of physical reality. — Proximate1
As Atoms, so called indivisible elements by the Greeks, have been later discovered to be composed of still more elemental quarks, is it possible to move down to scales of smallness beyond quarks or is a dimensionless particle as small as it gets? — Proximate1
Planck units – fundamental relationships – seem to correspond more to what ancient Greeks (& Indian Cārvāka) had in mind than to what early modern chemists, then physicists, anachronistically (mis)labeled "atoms". The only thing that was "discovered" with regard to "atoms" was that John Dalton et al were wildly premature and mistaken.Atoms, so called indivisible elements by the Greeks, have been later discovered to be composed of still more elemental quarks ... — Proximate1
I'd be very surprised if reality contains dimensionless mathematical points. — fishfry
As Atoms, so called indivisible elements by the Greeks, have been later discovered to be composed of still more elemental quarks, is it possible to move down to scales of smallness beyond quarks or is a dimensionless particle as small as it gets? — Proximate1
Beyond the excellent point you make about these points, I'll invoke the issue of intelligibility. What exactly do we have in mind? I understand representing something like a pure location with a vector, but it's still somewhat vague. — norm
None of which has anything to do with physics. Physics uses math to express and model their theories of nature, but the theories are not literally nature itself. Nature is beyond math IMO. — fishfry
Maybe there's no direct access to 'Reality' at all, but that would take us into the metaphysical quagmire — norm
Correcto. Our access to reality is conditioned by our material nature. Making it limited, ultimately. But since people don't want to hear that, I guess we can just keep saying a Theory of Everything is right around the corner. Trust us. — Dharmi
Yeah that's pretty much my view. There are some good points against this view (primarily directed against the intelligibility of concepts like reality-in-itself) but it still seems roughly right to me (or one of the least misleading or errant ways of talking/thinking.) — norm
Materiality is not the end-all-be-all of reality. Consciousness is. Namely, the Absolute Infinite Unoriginate Primeval Consciousness, what's called God. — Dharmi
In the end, though, I found myself in the Groundless Grounds camp. Personally I think the mind-matter-etc. is a dead end and that metaphysics builds castles in the sand. IMO, we can't play chess with language. Instead we have a poetry of high stakes, ultimately driven by spiritual-political concerns. — norm
This is why I am not arguing metaphysics. It's not a logical, conceptual point. It's an experiential one. You can verify for yourself if God exists or not, you do the experiment, see for yourself. No metaphysics needed. — Dharmi
Yes, Postmodern linguistic philosophy is not philosophy. It's what Socrates and Plato rightly derided as philodoxy. Lover of opinion. Philosophy is about the truth, about wisdom, about reality. Not about language games. If philosophy is about language games, then it's a waste of time. We can do something more productive with our time. — Dharmi
FWIW, I have insulted philosophers without having really looked into them myself, and I always ended up regretting it when I finally read them. Even if I didn't find them convincing, I also discovered that they weren't what I projected on them. — norm
And if we want to play the skepticism game, then we're not actually doing philosophy. This is philodoxy, love of perspective, of theory, of opinion, of belief, rather than love of truth, love of wisdom. Technically, there is no access to anything whatsoever. If we want to play the nihilism game, then we're not playing the philosophy game. — Dharmi
So, I've read all of these rascal philosophers. I've done a degree in philosophy, I've read all of the books on the library shelf when I was in College, even now, though I know what they say, I still listen to them. I listened to Stanley Fish and Richard Rorty just recently. — Dharmi
I don't deny their sincerity in pursuit of truth, but their belief system is the blind leading the blind. If truth is not real, then their position is untrue by their own admission let alone mine. Hence, I don't consider it worth serious philosophical consideration.
Philosophy is about Absolute Truth, Absolute Reality, and the nature of the Good. If you are denying the very possibility of those things, I consider that anti-philosophy. Not philosophy. — Dharmi
There's a sense in which I agree with you, but it's a delicate issue. Language is tricky. Irony is complex. People often don't or even can't say exactly what they mean directly. Sometimes a joke tells the truth. Sometimes a paradox tells the truth. — norm
For me the big issue turns out to be language, though that's not the perfect word. There isn't a perfect word, or that's what I roughly believe. What we want to say can't be said, that's what I almost want to say, but it's not quite right. Language is a public system, and it's more outside than inside. It's as much material as mental. It makes such questionable distinctions possible. Undecidable, but not decidedly undecidable. — norm
Yes, I recognize that. And by your own admission, there is no truth. Which means, again, by your own admission your position is not true. — Dharmi
This is a horizon of oblivion where philosophy usurps science. — Proximate1
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.