Is it? A contradiction is when one statement is the negation of another, yet both are asserted.It’s certainly possible that nature is not uniform, and that contradictions can exist in nature. — Pinprick
Is it? A contradiction is when one statement is the negation of another, yet both are asserted.
Is nature is made up of statements? That's what you seem to be asserting. How else could it be that "contradictions can exist in nature"? — Banno
Throwing reason away because someone disagrees with you seems an overreaction, Pinprick. — Banno
I was meaning facts in nature may not be rational, thereby contradicting reason. — Pinprick
Learn psychology. That will keep you sane. Philosophy will always remain subordinate to it. — Atman
We find a description that is consistent - quantum mechanics and special relativity. — Banno
An apparent contradiction means that our description is wrong, not that the world is inconsistent. — Banno
Sigmund Freud, the founder of modern psychology had some very dubious theories about women. He viewed them as utterly inferior to men. The power of philosophy lies in questioning psychology and its claims. — TaySan
Learn psychology. That will keep you sane. Philosophy will always remain subordinate to it. — Atman
Because that's how language works. The question is not "is the world consistent?" but "is that a consistent description?" - and if it is not, then we re-think the description. — Banno
Again, it's descriptions that are consistent, not worlds. IF the description is inconsistent, you need a better description.Doesn’t having a consistent description of the world depend on whether or not the world is consistent to begin with? — Pinprick
On the contrary, chaos and randomness have quite sophisticated mathematical descriptions - they need to be complex in order to accommodate what they are describing.Chaos, or randomness, cannot be comprehended through reason. — Pinprick
An apparent contradiction means that our description is wrong, not that the world is inconsistent. — Banno
They're "baffling" when one forgets or denies that only as one deviates farther from this – our – scale-perspective the more "inconsistent" those higher or lower scales seem, and like Banno points out, the more necessary it is to abandon descriptions adequate to this – our – scape-perspective and adopt descriptions adequate to those higher and lower scales. It's analogous to apparent "inconsistencies", or nonsense, which confuse us whenever we play one language-game (e.g. describing the movement of stars) in terms of another language-game (e.g. describing the impact of the zodiac on horoscopes). All that we "encounter" is, first and foremost, the "inconsistencies" of our inadequate descriptions.Go up a few levels and enter cosmic scales or go down a few levels into the world of the very small and what we encounter are baffling inconsistencies. — TheMadFool
Again, it's descriptions that are consistent, not worlds. — Banno
On the contrary, chaos and randomness have quite sophisticated mathematical descriptions - they need to be complex in order to accommodate what they are describing. — Banno
Again, how do you know? — Pinprick
They're "baffling" when one forgets or denies that only as one deviates farther from this – our – scale-perspective the more "inconsistent" those higher or lower scales seem, and like Banno points out, the more necessary it is to abandon descriptions adequate to this – our – scape-perspective and adopt descriptions adequate to those higher and lower scales. It's analogous to apparent "inconsistencies", or nonsense, which confuse us whenever we play one language-game (e.g. describing the movement of stars) in terms of another language-game (e.g. describing the impact of the zodiac on horoscopes). All that we "encounter" is, first and foremost, the "inconsistencies" of our inadequate descriptions. — 180 Proof
Because consistency is non-contradiction, and contradiction occurs in language. — Banno
Calling reason into question is self-defeating; any argument against rationality presupposes rationality. — Banno
But yes, reason is not infallible — Banno
↪180 Proof showed how we change our descriptions to understand things we find strange. — Banno
Doubt requires a background of certainty. — Banno
Descartes took the language in which he formulated his meditations for granted. — Banno
You cannot be wrong about the bishop always remaining on the same colour, you can only stop playing chess. — Banno
Randomness is subject to precise statistical analysis, and is not directly related to cause. — Banno
Contradiction occurring in language isn’t evidence that it doesn’t occur in nature. I’m not asking if language is consistent. Nature is constantly changing, so why insist on the existence of static fundamental laws? — Pinprick
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.