Time is not a thing anyway — I like sushi
Isn't it just the convergence between mathematical logic and physical necessity that he's talking about? — Wayfarer
One deals with physical reality (space-time), whilst the other cares not a jot for it — I like sushi
Time is only a thing for mass. — I like sushi
So you're drawing a line between the way we think and the way the world is — frank
What is called ‘logical’ in common parse has only a small connection to logic. — I like sushi
They can be glued together by observation. — Haglund
Physical reality has limits. Logic has no limits. — Haglund
Everything with mass ‘feels’ time/change. Things without out mass do not - time does not exist for them. — I like sushi
Although it's dubious to say we observed something that's impossible. We'll tend to continue trying to make observations fit with logic somehow even if it takes decades as with quantum theories. — frank
never occurred to him that the understanding itself might, perhaps, by means of these conceptions, be the author of the experience in which its objects were presented to — Mww
If the universe is assumed to be causally closed and contain a finitely bounded amount of information, then both determinancy and indeterminacy can be rejected as meaningless concepts on the grounds that neither concept can say anything normative or descriptive about a universe that is considered to be a complete dataset. — sime
It's arguably one of the many causes. I mean, the thing probably wouldn't have shown up there just then had your finger not pressed that spot just then. — noAxioms
If I push on the keyboard and a P shows up on the screen, I can see saying that my finger caused the P to show up. But isn't that what you are calling physical causation.
— T Clark
Isn't it? Didn't I? It's your intentional action, plus a lot of work by the likes of NoAxioms that has been done in the background, to ensure that it works this way. — Wayfarer
Hume recognized that there are two categories of knowledge: empirical and mathematical/logical. He called the former “Matters of Fact” and the latter “Relations of Ideas.”
Cause and effect in science is really a constant juxtaposition of events. We observe A followed by B. If this happens uniformly through Custom we infer causation, but we have no reason to justify this
So, I have a deep confusion about why philosophy sees this disconnection between logical necessity and physical causation. — Wayfarer
Indeed what causes this distinction, (quantum vs. classic) is a mystery in physics. — Josh Alfred
never occurred to him that the understanding itself might, perhaps, by means of these conceptions, be the author of the experience in which its objects were presented to
— Mww
And that's one way to reunite the boundaries of thought to the boundaries of possibility as long as we recalibrate "reality" to the world as we know it, right? — frank
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.