Quantum physics says something more, that the real-unreal dichotomy is old, outdated, and useless. — Agent Smith
... and yet still agreeing that if they swapped places then they would also swap observations. The one would see the spoon, the other the fork.
Ok, you missed the point. Not my problem. — Banno
So quantum tunnelling ain't quantum physics. You learn something new everyday. :roll: — apokrisis
Many may see the job of philosophy is to be anti-science - its challenger rather than its supporter. — apokrisis
Drawing a hard line between domains of human inquiry seems a mistake. — apokrisis
we can say we are natural philosophers — apokrisis
Quine had this idea that philosophy is the handmaid of science, — Srap Tasmaner
Agree, it's just hard to explain in what sense philosophy is a type of inquiry, lacking candidates with wide support for what its domain is. Inquiry into what? <insert crappy answer, handwaving optional> — Srap Tasmaner
Well said, sir! :100: :fire:One [AP] is the free play of syntax, the other [p0m0] is the free play of semantics. My usual point in any philosophy thread is that you need semiotics as a theory of meaningful utterances where syntax and semantics are in an enactive modelling relation with whatever world is under discussion. — apokrisis
That is why I see pragmatism as the core of the philosophical project - the right balance between the logicist and empirical tendencies. — apokrisis
AP can get to lost in wonder at the power of predicate logic, for example. Ironic that is must set itself against dialectical logic as being “too metaphysical” for this boundary-policing reason. — apokrisis
And presumably he would see far more clearly than others what the actual gaps in QM are likely to be, where the science 'runs out' and the point where the metaphysical interpretations can begin. — Tom Storm
So, a non-epistemic "true or false"? :chin: — 180 Proof
I think that's what we all want, and maybe why the mid-century titans of analytic philosophy, Quine and Sellars, each claimed the mantle of pragmatism at some point. — Srap Tasmaner
The standard story of the reception of American pragmatism in England is that Russell and Moore savaged James's theory, and that pragmatism has never fully recovered. An alternative, and underappreciated, story is told here. The brilliant Cambridge mathematician, philosopher and economist, Frank Ramsey, was in the mid-1920s heavily influenced by the almost-unheard-of Peirce and was developing a pragmatist position of great promise. He then transmitted that pragmatism to his friend Wittgenstein, although had Ramsey lived past the age of 26 to see what Wittgenstein did with that position, Ramsey would not have liked what he saw.
The more Hegelian continental tradition (at least because more Marxist) turned its back on science, or arrogated to itself the task of fixing science, rebuilding it as something else. — Srap Tasmaner
The generally pro-science sympathies of analytic philosophy, on the other hand, never fit comfortably with the linguistic turn, — Srap Tasmaner
Maybe it will embrace your dialectic yet. Maybe it already has, but it's hard to recognize in those funny clothes. — Srap Tasmaner
I'd say that "where the science 'runs out' and the point where the metaphysical interpretations can begin" is precisely the point where scientific expertise also runs out. — Janus
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute.[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — T Clark
So, how is it then possible to interpret it metaphysically (semantically)? — Janus
On my reading of the current situation in anglophone philosophy, which is admittedly limited, Ramsey cuts a wider swath than Wittgenstein. — Srap Tasmaner
Feynman, if I remember correctly, reportedly said "if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don;t understand quantum mechanics" which I take to mean that no one understands what is really going on, but obviously not that no one understands the math. — Janus
the question as to whether mathematics has any metaphysical implications, and that question remains controversial to this day, with mathematicians and philosophers on both sides of the debate. I don't think it is a question that mathematics expertise can help to answer. — Janus
If mathematicians need sets, for example, even if we're not happy about it, we'll deal with the philosophers who say they can't have them. — Srap Tasmaner
Plenty of philosophers ignore aesthetics, for instance, or ethics, but I always thought Quine didn't so much ignore them as exclude them. Do you read him differently? — Srap Tasmaner
But is it for his work or his biopic potential — apokrisis
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.