Yet quarks are supposed to be the constituent parts of massive objects. Where does all that mass actually come from? — Metaphysician Undercover
Logic, though, doesn't tell us anything about an inference other than whether it is consistent with its premises (validity); it cannot tell us whether the premises are true.
The only way to test the truth of any premise is by empirical evidence. — Janus
Most of the mass=energy of a proton is from the gluons. — PoeticUniverse
The strong force acts between quarks. Unlike all other forces (electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational), the strong force does not diminish in strength with increasing distance between pairs of quarks. After a limiting distance (about the size of a hadron) has been reached, it remains at a strength of about 10,000 newtons [N], no matter how much farther the distance between the quarks.[7] As the separation between the quarks grows, the energy added to the pair creates new pairs of matching quarks between the original two; hence it is impossible to isolate quarks. The explanation is that the amount of work done against a force of 10,000 newtons is enough to create particle–antiparticle pairs within a very short distance of that interaction. The very energy added to the system required to pull two quarks apart would create a pair of new quarks that will pair up with the original ones. In QCD, this phenomenon is called color confinement; as a result only hadrons, not individual free quarks, can be observed. The failure of all experiments that have searched for free quarks is considered to be evidence of this phenomenon. — Wikipedia
I must have missed your explication of that method. Can you summarize it for me? In what sense is it beyond physical"? Do you have a name for it?I've proposed an alternative method of metaphysical speculation to the mainstream (i.e. Platonic) method you've undertaken. — 180 Proof
That may be true of Shannon's definition of "information", as an empty carrier of meaning. But in my usage, and that of credentialed physicists, such as physicist Paul Davies, Information is both Causal and Meaningful. He edited a book by a dozen scientists & philosophers entitled "From Matter to Life: Information and Causality". So, if he is correct that Information has Causal powers, then that causal process is what we call "Work". :wink:"Information" is not "Work". — 180 Proof
In the process of Enformation (change of form) the brain burns energy to Change (en-form) the state of neurons. Note -- I resurrected an "obsolete" form of the verb "to inform" in order to emphasize the en-ergy aspect of the process. To En-Form is to cause a change of Form. Which is what Energy does. However, in my thesis, Energy is not "physical", but "meta-physical" ; not in a spiritual sense, but because it is knowable only by mental inference from its effects on matter, so we can't detect energy directly. We infer, or imagine, the invisible Cause from observation of physical changes in matter. :chin:Explain why a physical brain [i[physically[/i] "burns a lot of" physical "energy" — 180 Proof
Hmmm, interesting! I suppose you mean that Anti-idealism is Realism. But I could call it "Naive Realism". And my alternative would be "Information Realism". :cool:anti-idealism isn't necessarily physicalism — 180 Proof
Which includes those imaginary Quarks and Gluons, and all invisible Forces for that matter. But hey, icky & gummy crap can be used to stick & glue things together. :joke:…added up to a heck of a lot of crap! — PoeticUniverse
Premises need not be descriptions of physical things, whose truth and falsity is judged according to empirical evidence. We can make premises which are descriptions of how logic works, and also premises concerning moral issues. The judgement of truth or falsity of these premises is not based in empirical evidence, so it isn't really correct to say that the truth of a premise can only be tested by empirical evidence. That itself would be a premise which cannot be tested, so the truth or falsity of it could not be judged. — Metaphysician Undercover
All true, but the point about falsifiability is to be able to differentiate scientific or empirical hypotheses from those that are not. Examples that he gave were psychoanalysis and communism which can't be falsified as they're so loosely defined they can accomodate all kinds of counter-factuals (ergo not really 'scientific' although that is hardly news by now.) But the fact that an idea is not 'falsifiable' doesn't mean it's automatically invalid, that anything that can't be empirically falsified is empty. That's very close to positivism or verificationism. — Wayfarer
“by form I mean the essence of each thing and the primary substance” In my usage, Information is the "essence" of material things. And by that I'm referring to the immaterial mathematical Structure, that our minds interpret as Geometry & Topology (i.e. Shape or Form). That Essence is Ideal in the sense that it exists as an Idea in a Mind, which makes it as real as anything else in our mental & mathematical models of reality. — Gnomon
I think the examples you give: psychoanalysis and communism are tested by observing their results. — Janus
But Popper's point was that all kinds of results could be accomodated by both theories, which is why he used them as examples of the kinds of theories that purport to be scientific or empirical, but actually are not, because they can't be falsified by observation. — Wayfarer
I was thinking along the lines that psychoanalysis is believed to help people work through their mental problems. So you could do case studies to see if that is the case — Janus
Take the idea of enlightenment as knowing-the-ultimate-truth; that cannot be tested at all; how could you ever know by observation whether someone knows the ultimate truth (whatever that might even be thought to mean). — Janus
Any speculation which in principle cannot be even with minimal definiteness tested by observation would count as non-science. — Janus
a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.
Yes, but Popper's point was that no matter what came up, you could accomodate it or explain it, so Freudian psychoanalysis wasn't a predictive theory at all. — Wayfarer
The fact that metaphysical ideas are not testable does nothing to negate them, as ideas on that level can only be judged according to their philosophical merits. — Wayfarer
It can't be tested in the third person. — Wayfarer
As if the scientific criteria are the only criteria by which anything can be judged to be real. Which is as I've often said, pretty well an exact definition of positivism: — Wayfarer
So take a scientists who believes in only what the evidence shows. The world is made of quantum fields. That's what the evidence says exists at bottom. It's a fluctuating space that vibrates. It's a physical thing that we'll never see, can only get at thorough (physical) mathematical equations and offers no hints that a rock, much less an organism would ever arise. — Manuel
I suspect this is part of the reason why psychology as a science, has not made as much progress as other fields, the phenomena get too complex eventually. — Manuel
Did you meet Elon Musk out there?crap — Gnomon
My Space Vacation: — PoeticUniverse
Aristotle may have imagined "entelechia" in terms of an animating World Soul — Gnomon
entelechy, (from Greek entelecheia), in philosophy, that which realizes or makes actual what is otherwise merely potential. The concept is intimately connected with Aristotle’s distinction between matter and form, or the potential and the actual. He analyzed each thing into the stuff or elements of which it is composed and the form which makes it what it is (see hylomorphism). The mere stuff or matter is not yet the real thing; it needs a certain form or essence or function to complete it. Matter and form, however, are never separated; they can only be distinguished. Thus, in the case of a living organism, for example, the sheer matter of the organism (viewed only as a synthesis of inorganic substances) can be distinguished from a certain form or function or inner activity, without which it would not be a living organism at all; and this “soul” or “vital function” is what Aristotle in his De anima (On the Soul ) called the entelechy (or first entelechy) of the living organism. — Brittanica
If even scientific theories cannot be known to be true, how much less can metaphysical speculations be known to be true? There is no agreement among philosophers, much less than there is among scientists, so how could a metaphysical idea be judged according to its "philosophical merits"? Who decides what constitutes philosophical merit, and by what criteria? — Janus
Sorry, Aristotle gave a definition of "soul", so perhaps I mis-spoke. Anyway, his notion of Entelechy sounds like another word for the motivating animating vital force of the world. Some Physicalists and Realists on this forum don't mind reifying metaphors into material forms. :smile:I don't associated the idea of the 'world soul' with Aristotle in particular, but definitely with the idea of 'animating principle'. — Wayfarer
Of course if you try to explain how that teleology came to be programmed into a speck of Potential, that might get Meta-Physical, in the sense of probing beyond the physical boundary of our world. — Gnomon
I guess you didn't read this postI must have missed your explication of that method. Can you summarize it for me? In what sense is it beyond physical"? — Gnomon
or the embedded link (rabbit hole to Oz!) therein.negative metaphysics, as I propose with good reasons ↪180 Proof, surpasses (anachronistic) 'positive metaphysics'. — 180 Proof
Do you have a name for it?
Now, you're just getting nasty. So, I'll back-off the stinky word "Metaphysics", and present my aromatic turkey dinner in the form of Karl Popper's notion of non-falsifiable Worlds 2 &3 as noted in the reply to Janus below. — Gnomon
Yet quarks are supposed to be the constituent parts of massive objects. Where does all that mass actually come from? — Metaphysician Undercover
Atoms or Bosons — Gnomon
In Gnomon's defense, he offers definitions and glossary links to every term he uses. You don't have to agree with him but you can't say that he's not trying. — 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.