A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. — Wittgenstein

What I find problematic, however, is some people in the humanities who claim that subjectivity is not just a limitation of science (it is), but also the way forward to some sort of alternative that goes "beyond" science. I think Husserlian phenomenology falls close to this position. The problem is that the whole approach seems to me to be predicated on not taking seriously one's own objections: if subjectivity and first-person experience cannot be treated by science then the answer isn't to create another "science" (or uber-science) that can handle it, but rather to accept that we as human beings are bounded to use a combination of third and first person approaches in order to arrive at understanding. — Massimo

but the objective truth of what they are actually touching still accounts for the senses they all experience — Pfhorrest

Make a science out of what? — Pfhorrest

Thoughts and feelings are interpretations. Experiences are not. The three blind men touching the elephant each feels like (perceives that) they're touching a different thing, and none of them are correct, but the objective truth of what they are actually touching still accounts for the senses they all experience. The hard part is coming up with a model that does account for all their different experiences. — Pfhorrest

Besides being an introductory text, our objective is to present an overview, as general as possible, of the more recent developments in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, especially beyond the local equilibrium description. This is partially a terra incognita, an unknown land, because basic concepts as temperature, entropy, and the validity of the second law become problematic beyond the local equilibrium hypothesis. The answers provided up to now must be considered as partial and provisional, but are nevertheless worth to be examined.

An important question is whether a precise definition can be attached to the notion of entropy when the system is driven far from equilibrium. In equilibrium thermodynamics, entropy is a well-defined function of state only in equilibrium states or during reversible processes. However, thanks to the local equilibrium hypothesis, entropy remains a valuable state function even in non-equilibrium situations. The problem of the definition of entropy and corollary of intensive variables as temperature will be raised as soon as the local equilibrium hypothesis is given up.

By material body (or system) is meant a continuum medium of total mass m and volume V bounded by a surface Σ. Consider an arbitrary body, outside equilibrium, whose total entropy at time t is S. The rate of variation of this extensive quantity may be written as the sum of the rate of exchange with the exterior d^eS/dt and the rate of internal production, dⁱS/dt:

dS/dt = d^eS/dt + dⁱS/dt (2.7)

Once entropy is defined, it is necessary to formulate the second law, i.e. to specify which kinds of behaviours are admissible in terms of the entropy behaviour. The classical formulation of the second law due to Clausius states that, in isolated systems, the possible processes are those in which the entropy of the final equilibrium state is higher or equal (but not lower) than the entropy of the initial equilibrium state. In the classical theory of irreversible processes, one introduces an even stronger restriction by requiring that the entropy of an isolated system must increase everywhere and at any time, i.e. dS/dt ≥ 0. In non-isolated systems, the second law will take the more general form

dⁱS/dt > 0 (for irreversible processes) (2.10a)
dⁱS/dt = 0 (for reversible processes or at equilibrium) (2.10b)

It is important to realize that inequality (2.10a) does nor prevent that open or closed systems driven out of equilibrium may be characterized by dS/dt < 0; this occurs for processes for which d^eS/dt < 0 and larger in absolute value than dⁱS/dt. Several examples are discussed in Chap. 6.

According to it, the local and instantaneous relations between thermodynamic quantities in a system out of equilibrium are the same as for a uniform system in equilibrium. To be more explicit, consider a system split mentally in a series of cells, which are sufficiently large for microscopic fluctuations to be negligible but sufficiently small so that equilibrium is realized to a good approximation in each individual cell. The size of such cells has been a subject of debate, on which a good analysis can be found in Kreuzer (1981) and Hafskjold and Kjelstrup (1995). The local equilibrium hypothesis states that at a given instant of time, equilibrium is achieved in each individual cell or, using the vocabulary of continuum physics, at each material point.

...As a consequence, when working at short timescales or high frequencies, and correspondingly at short length scales or short wavelengths, the generalized transport laws must include memory and non-local effects. The analysis of these generalized transport laws is one of the main topics in modern non-equilibrium thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and engineering. Such transport laws are generally not compatible with the local equilibrium hypothesis and a more general thermodynamic framework must be looked for. — chapter 7

I guess you missed the first thread in this series, the introduction page, which lays out the structure of the whole project. There are only four "against" essays just eliminating the broad kinds of views I don't support, and then seventeen more essays going into detail on what I do support out of the remaining possibilities.

And as you'll see in those later essays, I am totally a pacifist, and equating objecting to certain philosophical views with violence is pretty absurd. — Pfhorrest

A polemic is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about controversial topics. The practice of such argumentation is called polemics. A person who often writes polemics, or who speaks polemically, is called a polemicist. The word is derived from Ancient Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning 'warlike, hostile',from πόλεμος (polemos), meaning 'war'.

We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily. — Heraclitus

I am very aware of it, and it forms a pivotal part of this entire project. Treating facts and values analogously is not treating them as the same kind of thing, and in the very next essay (Against Cynicism) I argue explicitly against treating them as the same kind of thing. — Pfhorrest

Would you care to elaborate, and possibly relate this to the essay under discussion? — Pfhorrest

Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition. More recently, Walter Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence." According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it." Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system". According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state." Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way." In Landsberg's opinion: "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book."

A recent analysis of entropy states, "The entropy of a general gravitational field is still not known", and, "gravitational entropy is difficult to quantify". The analysis considers several possible assumptions that would be needed for estimates and suggests that the observable universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the analysis concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor. Lee Smolin goes further: "It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."

Another fundamental and very important difference is the difficulty or impossibility, in general, in defining entropy at an instant of time in macroscopic terms for systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium; it can be done, to useful approximation, only in carefully chosen special cases, namely those that are throughout in local thermodynamic equilibrium.

-And as to truth, I said, is not a soul equally to be deemed halt and lame which hates voluntary falsehood and is extremely indignant at herself and others when they tell lies, but is patient of involuntary falsehood, and does not mind wallowing like a swinish beast in the mire of ignorance, and has no shame at being detected?
-To be sure.
-And, again, in respect of temperance, courage, magnificence, and every other virtue, should we not carefully distinguish between the true son and the bastard? For where there is no discernment of such qualities, states and individuals unconsciously err; and the state makes a ruler, and the individual a friend, of one who, being defective in some part of virtue, is in a figure lame or a bastard.
-That is very true, he said.
-All these things, then, will have to be carefully considered by us; and if only those whom we introduce to this vast system of education and training are sound in body and mind, justice herself will have nothing to say against us, and we shall be the saviours of the constitution and of the State; but, if our pupils are men of another stamp, the reverse will happen, and we shall pour a still greater flood of ridicule on philosophy than she has to endure at present.
-That would not be creditable.
-Certainly not, I said; and yet perhaps, in thus turning jest into earnest I am equally ridiculous.
-In what respect?
-I had forgotten, I said, that we were not serious, and spoke with too much excitement. For when I saw philosophy so undeservedly trampled under foot of men, I could not help feeling a sort of indignation at the authors of her disgrace: and my anger made me too vehement.
-Indeed! I was listening, and did not think so.
-But I, who am the speaker, felt that I was. And now let me remind you that, although in our former selection we chose old men, we must not do so in this. Solon was under a delusion when he said that a man when he grows old may learn many things–for he can no more learn much than he can run much; youth is the time for any extraordinary toil. — Plato

What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. — Hawking

Mathematics has no direct empirical take on the world. Its models are always abstract Platonic worlds. It is through its influence on empirical disciplines (such as science) that it affects our real-world view. There are obviously other empirical disciplines such as history with its historical method. However, in my impression, history does not use the language nor the invariants of mathematics. — alcontali

There is no proof in empirical disciplines, simply because proof about the physical universe is impossible. The regulatory framework in use in science with which they attempt to maintain correspondence between their logic sentences and the physical universe is obviously far from perfect. Falsificationism is merely a best-effort endeavour. — alcontali

Any link to that? — alcontali

The pursuit of wisdom. Wisdom, in turn, does not merely mean some set of correct statements, but rather is the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question. — Pfhorrest

To that end, philosophy must investigate questions about what our questions even mean, investigating questions about language; what criteria we use to judge the merits of a proposed answer, investigating questions about being and purpose, the objects of reality and morality respectively; what methods we use to apply those criteria, investigating questions about knowledge and justice; what faculties we need to enact those methods, investigating questions about the mind and the will; who is to exercise those faculties, investigating questions about academics and politics; and why any of it matters at all. — Pfhorrest

The tools of philosophy can be used against that end, but I prefer to call that "phobosophy" instead. — Pfhorrest

Well, rather: extrapolate them to how we perceive the real world. Stephen Hawking lectured the following on the subject: — alcontali

Stephen Hawking on Gödel and the End of Physics — alcontali

Given Tarski's undefinability of truth, any system has no other choice but to receive its fundamental truths from a higher meta-system. — alcontali

And your point is ...? — 180 Proof

I think it's a sustained self-examination (Socrates) which exposes to us that we, in fact, do not know or understand what we think - take for granted - we know or understand, and thereby helps us to align our expectations (i.e. judgments) with whatever is the case. — 180 Proof

Like when we cannot be 'ignorant of our ignorance' or the eye cannot not see itself or there are no more 'unknown unknowns' ... but that's waiting on a train - apotheosis - that'll never come. No, Pussy, philosophy is an 'infinite task', or as Pierre Hadot says "a spiritual exercise" ... — 180 Proof

I think philosophy is much like martial arts for the mind: as the practice of martial arts both develops the body from the inside and prepares one to protect their body from attacks from the outside, both from crude brutes but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of martial arts toward offense rather than defense, so too philosophy develops the mind and will from the inside, and also prepares one to protect their mind and will from attacks from the outside, both from crude ignorance and inconsideration but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of philosophy against its purpose.

In a perfect world, the latter uses of either martial arts or philosophy would be unnecessary, as such attacks would not be made to begin with, but in the actual world it is unfortunately useful to be thus prepared; and even in a perfect world, with no external attackers, martial arts and philosophy are both still useful for their internal development and exercise of the body, mind, and will. — Pfhorrest

Only when death (i.e. human Mortality) becomes (technologically) optional will (the need for) religion die. Likewise, when ignorance (of ignorance, especially) is no longer an inescapable, or inexhaustable, aspect of human Existence will philosophy be dead and buried. — 180 Proof

Yeah, general abstract nonsense. On the one side, I really like its "nonsensical" touch and feel, but on the other side, I haven't been able to find anything surprising to do with it. So, I will have to leave it open ... — alcontali

Great point. Everyone likes to make fun of philosophers! — fishfry

I have a solution ot revive it. — Francesca

Pure reason does not mean "free from otherwise unjustifiable premises". It means "free from sensory input". — alcontali

Furthermore, religious law is a formal system, just like any theory. For example, Islamic law has a largely mechanical epistemology, very much like mathematics, and when written in formal language, Islamic law is machine verifiable, just like all sound knowledge. — alcontali

Furthermore, all attacks on religion would also apply to any subdiscipline in mathematics, including logic itself. The reason why atheists pick religion as a target, is simply because it looks like an easier target than mathematics. This wrong perception is caused by Christianity, because, unlike Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism and Islam, Christianity is not and has never been a formal system. — alcontali

Maybe what you have in mind is Intuition versus Reasoning. Philosophy has always been a logical rational approach to the world. But, it cannot abandon the Intuition that sparks a chain of reasoning. Philosophy without Logic or Reasoning would be Faith and Religion. But to depend on logic alone, is the mistake of Logical Positivism. Man cannot live by logic alone. — Gnomon

If you did read my text then you'd understand that life within different stages is still life. According to your logic it would be equally right to kill a newborn child as to an abortion state fetus as they both haven't really developed into full consciousness. — EpicTyrant

Hawking's assertion that "philosophy is dead," was self-refuting. Why? Because the statement "philosophy is dead" is itself a philosophical statement. — LD Saunders

Celebrity physicists bashing philosophy is as old as Feynman if not older. — fishfry

Martin Heidegger understood this aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy* by looking at it as the death of metaphysics. In his view, Nietzsche's words can only be understood as referring not to a particular theological or anthropological view but rather to the end of philosophy itself. Philosophy has, in Heidegger's words, reached its maximum potential as metaphysics and Nietzsche's words warn of its demise and the end of any metaphysical worldview. If metaphysics is dead, Heidegger warns, that is because from its inception that was its fate.