Complaint? — Wayfarer
In opting for such a bold departure from the European tradition, Bohr was much influenced by the Daojia tradition of the Laozi, which enabled him to make sense of quantum phenomena, when he realised that these failed to conform to the ‘either (particle) or (wave)’ Law of Excluded Middle, as they are both simultaneously. There is logic other than classical bvalent logic.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321280738_Bohr_Quantum_Physics_and_the_Laozi
It points out that the pioneers were deep thinkers - cultured Europeans who understood philosophy. — Wayfarer
The Hard Problem pretends to have its ontic ground - zombies as a real possibility despite all that science and commonsense says - but it simply devolves to standard Humean epistemic issue that “we will never really know” that bedevils all rational inquiry and which became precisely the reason for pragmatism becoming standard as the way to move forward after that. — apokrisis
What, you say particle mechanics and wave mechanics both seem to apply? — apokrisis
Again, there is a difference between how things are and how we believe they are. A difference between how they are and how we say that they are. A difference that tends to dissipate in idealism. A difference that explains what it is to be mistaken. — Banno
Say we see an oar in water and it appears bent to us. We then lift it out and see that it is really straight; the bent appearance was an illusion caused by the water's refraction. On Philonous' (i.e. idealist) view, though, we cannot say that we were wrong about the initial judgement; if we perceived the stick as bent then the stick had to have been bent. Similarly, since we see the moon's surface as smooth we cannot really say that the moon's surface is not smooth; the way that it appears to us has to be the way it is. Philonous has an answer to this worry as well. While we cannot be wrong about the particular idea, he explains, we can still be wrong in our judgement. Ideas occur in regular patterns, and it is these coherent and regular sensations that make up real things, not just the independent ideas of each isolated sensation. The bent stick can be called an illusion, therefore, because that sensation is not coherently and regularly connected to the others. If we pull the stick out of the water, or we reach down and touch the stick, we will get a sensation of a straight stick. It is this coherent pattern of sensations that makes the stick. If we judge that the stick is bent, therefore, then we have made the wrong judgement, because we have judged incorrectly about what sensation we will have when we touch the stick or when we remove it from the water. — Dialogue between Philonious and Hylas, Berkeley
What does NASA playing politics/ecomomics have to do with a scientific theory developed by Cornell University scientists? Do you think they choose to only back ideas that might be popular with voters? Is AstroBiology a popular use of taxpayer investments? Show me the aliens! :joke:No. I'm pointing out how the sociology of science operates. NASA wants to remain employed by the US taxpayer. — apokrisis
Refresh my memory. What have you been telling me? Have you been saying something like : "while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder"*2. This notion is also in opposition to the presumptions of Materialism, which focuses on the Randomness & Chaos of the universe"? If so, please accept my belated welcome to the club. :grin:Sorry Gnomon, I don't fathom how your brain works. What else have I been telling you for at least a decade? — apokrisis
So, you were underwhelmed by this revelation of Causal Information as the key to universal progressive & creative Evolution from almost nothing to everything? Apparently some scientists in related fields are more impressed. :nerd:This doesn't seem like some profound new law about the world to me; they just seem to be proposing another way of describing evolution as always been understood, just in a different and I guess more general way. — Apustimelogist
No. Where did you get that idea? One implication of this New Law of Evolution is that its progression of increasing complexity & creative novelty eventually led from a hypothetical Singularity Soup (quark/gluon plasma) to the emergence of complex brains & minds capable of asking questions about Fairness & Justice, that we world-observers call Philosophy. :smile:Is the argument then that this complexity somehow implies (leads to, causes...) a fair and just universe? — Banno
But the larger problem here is that a genetic fallacy is still a genetic fallacy. Bad motivations don't make someone wrong. — Count Timothy von Icarus
We infer others are conscious because I am conscious and other people seem to be like me and do roughly similar things under similar circumstances. — bert1
What do you think the point of that simile is? — Wayfarer
Refresh my memory. What have you been telling me? — Gnomon
Without understanding it, Gnomon in fact posted this graph of the creation of the negentropic gap from David Layzer, the cosmologist who saw this back in the 1960s.
Our interpretative experience of even the alphabet, let alone the world, has this epistemic character. We must divide the confusion dialectically into global formal necessity and local material accident. That is then how we can “decode” reality. That is how we can construct an “understanding”. — apokrisis
I apologize for my ignorance and leaky memory. As I've mentioned before, I had no formal training in Philosophy in college, and I only began to get some experience with argumentation since I retired, and began posting on this forum. So a large percentage of your posts goes over my head, especially the long complicated ones. You use technical terminology unfamiliar to me, and refer to authors & texts I've never read. So, in many cases I just skim the posts. As you probably do with mine.Refresh my memory. What have you been telling me? — Gnomon
As I say, I am officially baffled about how you deal with information. — apokrisis
No need for the scare quotes around understanding. Which pretty well illustrates the point of the ‘mind-created world’. — Wayfarer
As opposed to sentence? But there remains the distinction between how the universe is and how we judge it to be. On one side, we have what we state, judge, believe, know, expect, doubt to be the case; and on the other, what is the case. Things we do against how things are.I said ‘any judgement regarding what exists’. — Wayfarer
Sure. Why? In , you didn't take the time to set out what it is you want me to take from the extended quote. I'll refer you to the thread on Sense and Sensibility, to a post that outlines the physics of the bent stick and others that sets out Austin'e response. "The sting, when it comes, is pithy and simple."Optical illusions and mistaken perceptions such as ‘the bent oar’ are discussed by Berkeley. I’ll dig up the ref although not right now. — Wayfarer
So here:What is wrong, what is even faintly surprising, in the idea of a stick's being straight but looking bent sometimes? Does anyone suppose that if something is straight, then it jolly well has to look straight at all times and in all circumstances?
— p.29 — Austin, p.29
Seeing the stick as bent is exactly what we expect, given that the stick is straight and partially immersed in water. Nothing incoherent here.The bent stick can be called an illusion, therefore, because that sensation is not coherently and regularly connected to the others. — Dialogue between Philonious and Hylas, Berkeley
"What we consider to be reality". Again, what we do, not what is. So sure, we "divide" the world up so as to make sense of it. Therefore there is a world for us to divide up. Hence Idealism is insufficient to explain how things are.‘what we consider to be ‘reality’, symbolised by the letter R in the diagram, consists of an elaborate paper maché construction of imagination and theory fitted between a few iron posts of observation’. — Wayfarer
I spoke previously about speculative physics. Specificity is needed here. Folk think that it's all mins because quantum, but you and I want better arguments....an argument in physics as to ‘what is real’ — Wayfarer
nstead, I view the area between the red & blue curves in the Entropy graph as Negentropy — Gnomon
An understanding is an Umwelt. It is the manufacturing, or co-dependent arising, of the subjective and the object, the self and its world, as the one cohesive dialectic.
There is no ontological self that is the seat of consciousness. That is as much a useful epistemic construct as the world in which this self sees itself living within. — apokrisis
You didn't take the time to set out what it is you want me to take from the extended quote — Banno
there is a difference between how things are and how we believe they are. A difference between how they are and how we say that they are. A difference that tends to dissipate in idealism. A difference that explains what it is to be mistaken. — Banno
I think we agree that there is a world, and that we have what philosophers call intentional attitudes towards that world, but you put all the emphasis on those attitudes, as if the world were not also part of what is going on — Banno
Is the argument then that this complexity somehow implies (leads to, causes...) a fair and just universe?
— Banno
No. Where did you get that idea? One implication of this New Law of Evolution is that its progression of increasing complexity & creative novelty eventually led from a hypothetical Singularity Soup (quark/gluon plasma) to the emergence of complex brains & minds capable of asking questions about Fairness & Justice, that we world-observers call Philosophy. :smile: — Gnomon
Just as I said. — Wayfarer
Sure. I think I replied to that, using Austin. A straight stick appears bent in water.So the passage from Berkeley’s imaginary dialogue was provided to illustrate how Berkeley deals with that criticism. — Wayfarer
It might help to try and look at why we keep coming back to these same arguments. I think it to do with the vanity of small differences. We agree on pretty much everything except that final wording, where you say that the world is a construction of the mind, and I point out that the construction is dependent on stuff outside the mind.
I am not at all convinced we are in any substantive disagreement. — Banno
This latter is shown explicitly in classical logic by the explosion ρ^~ρ⊃ψ, that from a contradiction anything follows. — Banno
While it is true that Hegel’s speculative philosophy is a systematic unfolding, it is an error to suppose that the Hegelian system operates as a smooth, progressive development, mechanically moving forward in a unidirectional manner.
The Science of Logic is not a simple movement where one term encounters its antithesis and sublates itself. On the contrary, causality engenders a reciprocal action, and is what Hegel calls a double transition or a double movement (gedopplete Bewegung), where the cause determines the effect, and the effect determines the cause.
Sublation is composed of “two factors conditioned by negativity, these being the two modalities of suppression and preservation…both together forming the energy of the negative.”8 It is precisely this energy of the negative that gives Hegel’s negation of negation its power and force. Sublation determines what it sublates. When something is absolutely negated, it isn’t entirely cancelled out, there is a minimal remainder and it is this preservation that transforms the sublated term into something decidedly new.
...and of course, you were always saying this... — Banno
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.