No they don't. Some descriptions of phenomena are consensually more useful (in terms of prediction and control) than others in particular contexts. No description is any closer to a nebulous 'reality' than any other. (Nietzsche). The 'reality debate' is rejected as futile by Pragmatists like Rorty. — fresco
there’s over 21 different interpretations of QM, not because they are all true, but only because so called “philosophers” like you refuse to accept the existence of a non-spatial aspect to existence. hence the reason that still, after a hundred years, the prevailing metaphysical paradigm is still materialistic. Thomas Kuhn was right in his scientific revolutions; and so was Planck saying that “new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Stopped perpetuating falsehoods to support your preconceived bias.
That seems to me something like Vedanta, or that aspect of German idealism which is similar to it, such as Fichte’s ‘absolute ego’. Regrettably I can’t see a justification for that notion especially depicted in such summary form. — Wayfarer
Yes, it is similar to Husserl’s “Transcendental Ego,” in essence, the perceiver of the perceiver of your thoughts, which is your “true Self” is beyond apace, and this is clear to see when you discover that’s its re source of the will and when you enact it while thinking and change your context in thought, you are willingly changing the patterns in which your neurons fire, and this process is a process which extends from the quantum substratum to the perceptible thought and sound inside our conscious awareness. If the Self is not outside of space, this change in context in thought would be an effect of a prior material cause and our wills could not then be free.
there are many justifications for this. if it were not true that the causal chain which supports hard determinism were not broken inside our minds, it would be impossible to experience silence of mind, and also, if we even existed as a self, we would be, not the active agents of our will, but the passive watchers of it. it’s quite clear, phenomenologically speaking, that we are the active agents of our will, so it must be the case that it is both beyond space and not bound by the causal chain.
How does your philosophical evangelism which relies on classical set theory, reconcile with aspects of QM in which classical set theory is inapplicable ?Even Einstein had trouble with that one ! David Bohm tried going down Einstein's 'underlying order' suggestion, but he was sidelined by most of the profession as being 'a mystic'.
It seems to me that your one-liner about 'philosophy being in a dark place' is merely a fear of being forced to swim without a traditional buoyancy aid. — fresco
I’m an ubermensch and a mystic, not a Christian, and especially not an evangelist. you clearly don’t understand the difference, probably because you really know nothing of the position that you criticize and you just default to the materialistic interpretation of everything out of spite or ignorance. see how you without thinking criticized mysticism? this is like the politicians criticizing left wing politics; they do so to keep people from becoming one, why? because then they cannot convince them that it’s rational to become anything in life or to not have a knowledge of being itself. they can then be controlled ideologically just like you are; a little puppet with strings!
ZFC only exists to avoid the paradox created by Russell’s Paradox, not there’s only a problem with Russell’s Paradox if the set of all sets doesn’t have ontological value, or rather, that the ground of being itself downs both contain itself and not contain itself at the same time and in the same respect; but it does, you see, you just have to be intelligent enough to see why. I’ve solved it, of course. I know the essence of the set of all sets. you’ll have to discover why it’s true for yourself or read my work when I release it to the public.
And for the record. Traditional philosophy isn’t philosophy. It’s a last ditch effort to save materialism and atheism. It’s hilarious to watch. Such fools; they same can be said for nearly all of humanity.