Comments
-
Postmodernism and MathematicsAFAIK, no one, including any p0m0, has ever pointed out a 'culture' wherein mathematics does not work (e.g. "0 > 1" ... "2 + 2 = 87" ... "C = 3 π r" ... "150° triangle" ...) or is inapplicable for time-keeping, drumming-dancing-chanting, farming, buillding megastructures, accounting, navigating, etc. Like bivalent logic (Ibn Sina^^), the universality of arithmetic-geometry (Kant) is inescapable. Whether or not a 'culture' adaptively makes use of elementary / advanced mathematics, however, is another matter all together – perhaps, I suspect, mostly an accident of cognitive anthropological development.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/692175 ^^ -
Absential MaterialismThis is not a physics forum so I don't see the philosophical relevance of the quote cited; and conflating the Schrödinger equation with the 'Schrödinger's Cat' gedankenexperiment proves my point.
-
Absential Materialism
:roll:I understand him to be making reference to Schrödinger's equation for a superpositionally dead & alive cat. — ucarr -
To What Extent is 'Anger' an Emotion or Idea and How May it Be Differentiated from 'Hatred'?
I tend to agree with Spinoza (& e.g. the Epicureans, Stoics, Pyrrhonians), strong emotions tend to bias or block thinking, especially philosophizing, with that to which such emotions are reacting. 'Philosophies of life' usually propose exercises (e.g. meditating, caretaking, suspending judgment, flowing, being indifferent to whatever cannot be controlled, etc) for cultivating habits of equanimity, which IMO grounds courage (i.e. the skill-set for adaptively, or proactively, using – thriving from – loss, failure or uncertainty).In some ways, anger may be seen as something to be overcome emotionally, or as an idea,or frequency. How does it stand in connection with philosophical ideas and ideals of love and hatred? — Jack Cummins -
Absential Materialism
I heve no idea what you mean, ucarr.a kind of metaphysical POV [ ... ] affords us a metaphysics of practice — ucarr
Deacon sounds like he's espousing what C. Rovelli aptly calls "quantum nonsense" (re: ).If quantum physicists can learn to become comfortable with the material causal consequences of the superposition of alternate, as-yet-unrealized states of matter [ ... ] the superposition of the present and the absent in our functions, meanings,
experiences, and values [ ... ] a delicate superposition of the present and the absent. -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?Unless I'm mistaken, I think contradiction
in (non-dialetheistic) logic = necessary falsity;
in modal logic = necessary impossibility; and
in modal metaphysics = necessary ontic-impossibility (e.g. sosein)*.
*fiction
As modal metaphysics, my proposal of 'negative ontology' – basically expressed in actualist terms (as suggested in my previous post) – distinguishes versions of the world** which could not be (fictions) from those versions of the world** which could be (facts).
**actuality
@Count Timothy von Icarus -
Absential Materialism
See p.1 of this thread for my exchanges with @ucarr on discussed similarities of classical atomism and "absential materialism", namely the role of absence/void as "constraint" and thereby the primary factor in emergence/atomic recombinations. As for my "attitude" toward his book: from ucarr's reflections, wiki summary & reviews, T. Deacon's thesis seems to be 'nonreductive physicalist scientism' – not philosophically interesting to me.It might be instructive to ask 180 about attitude toward Deacon's "radical" Incomplete Nature, and Absential theories. — Gnomon -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?
I think of it this way: Any world that contains, or is constituted by, either contradictions or objects with inconsistent properties is, in terms of modal logic, impossible; therefore, such constituent entities (i.e. versions of the world) are necessary fictions.Does your negative ontology "eliminate the impossible," or does it simply eliminate "what is impossible given certain unquestioned and taken-for-granted presuppositions?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes and no. I use terms of modal logic (e.g. actual, contingent, possible, necessary, impossible) since it is the clearest, most precise "framework" I've found. Specifically, actualism rather than possibilism.Can it only ever say what is impossible from within a given framework and are all frameworks equally valid?
No. They are equally fictional.Is it a problem for "impossible" or contradictory claims to be considered equally valid?
I agree. "Total relativism" (like global skepticism; existential/semantic/epistemological/ontological nihilism) is self-refuting. I think (aspect, property & valence) pluralism is a more reasonable principle – and very strongly correlated with actualism (as well as N. Goodman's irrealism) – for which variations, or counterparts, are neither equivalent (i.e. "equally valid" in every circumstance) nor always, or even mostly, commensurable. Yes, like the heights and depths of a landscape, most(?) valid paths / positions are patently better or worse – more adequate or less adequate – than others.... total relativism. And the problems related to relativism seem particularly acute when claims about "how the world is," "how experience is," etc. are brought in ... -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?IME, the reliance on dictionary definitions for key terms (or distinctions) muddles more than it clarifies in philosophical discussions, especially where there are precise terms of art in standard usage. I stand by my answer: negative ontology, like any other speculative supposition (i.e. philosophical proposal) or formal expression (e.g. logic, mathematics), is definitely not falsifiable – it is a criteriological method and not a hypothetical explanation of phenomena.
-
What’s your description of Metaphysics?Falsification (Popper) isn't a term used to indicate the mere negative truth-value of a proposition but precisely that to be falsifiable means 'experimental tests of an explanatory model's predictions can fail'. Don't confuse the issue, Count: IMO, metaphysics is not theoretical (Witty).
-
Absential MaterialismGlad to be helpful. :up:
:clap: :rofl: That's all folks!... cartoon of Gnomon, as a New Age nut, touting Quantum Mysticism [ ... ] the observing mind plays a role in the results of sub-atomic experiments ... — Gnomon
:fire:It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupidities dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense. — Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60 -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?
No. It's a logical expression, not a scientific claim.Is the "elimination of the impossible," or discovery of "ways the world necessarily could not have been or cannot be described," not, broadly speaking, a form of falsification? — Count Timothy von Icarus -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?
:up: :up: Thus, in the main 'kataphatic metaphysics' – the Classical / Aristotlean tradition – is ad hoc (e.g. "this is the Really Real"-of-the-gaps), mostly derived from invalid arguments, which usually amounts to dogma like "only Euclidean geometry is Really Real because non-Euclidean geometries are mere appearances" or as you suggest "what if this / my set of axioms is Absolute ..."Much of metaphysics consists in playing dialectically with language—what if such and such (such and such that is the dialectical opposite of what we actually encounter) is really the case. — Janus
A typically incorrigible example:
:mask:I prefer to think of Metaphysics [ ... ] attempting to gain an omniscient worldview. — Gnomon -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?I don't understand your response to my post (re: negative ontology). Plesse clarify.
-
Absential Materialism
:up: :up:Metaphysics is little more than the logical grammar undergirding the conceptual dimensions of science. It's neither beyond nor above science. It's something akin to an emergent property of science. — ucarr
Thus, in the first century BCE Andronicus of Rhodes who had edited Aristotle's corpus had titled the philosophia prima The Book Following The Book On Nature aka "metà tà physikà tá" (as in following from re: categorical generalizations / essential conditions of explaining nature aka "physics"). Woo-of-the-gaps sophists like @Gnomon and other idealists / antirealist / supernaturalists naively(?) invert the Classical order – ahistorically make sh*t up – and incorrigibly misconstrue physics (i.e. science) as the product of – following from – "Meta-physics" (e.g. nous, the one, pure reason, geist, beyng ... "Enformer"). :sparkle: :roll: -
What’s your description of Metaphysics?
-
Analysis of GoodnessWell if my meaning isn't clear enough for you in my previous post, then I can't help you, Bob.
-
Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History:ok: Gotcha. So you cannot cite a single reputable scientific source to warrant acceptance of 'biological determinism of patriarchical hierarchies'.
-
Analysis of GoodnessYour objections do not make sense to me. I've not made any "assertions", Bob, you have in your OP, and I find them based on arbitrary (i.e. context-free yet non-formal) definitions which you fail to provide any discursive reasons, or justification, for me/us to accept rather than some other definitions. For instance "goodness" – but I'm not a Platonist (i.e. essentialist). This is why I recommended some disparate readings in modern moral philosophy.
-
Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History
Evidence (i.e. a reputable scientific source)?Biological determinism?
— 180 Proof
Is a fact of life. — AmadeusD -
Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History
:up:How is young Jordan, I wonder?
— Banno
I expect he is still making profitable use of the vacuum in many people's lives, like L Ron Hubbard, Ayn Rand and many others before him. — Tom Storm
Like tRump, charlatanry never sleeps because gullibility and stupidity never sleep.
For fuck's sake – Biological determinism? Teleological reductionism? Pre-(ahistorical)-historicism? etc :zip:... the biology of males [ ... ] Simply put, the necessity for governors, administrators, military, and more for a society to function calls upon the male biology of a hierarchical structure. The female biology of gathering and caring for children [ ... ] gender roles arise naturally ... and women are meant to be the homemakers and child caretakers, while men are meant to be the organizers [ ... ] Most women are simply not capable, by biology ... — ButyDude
Not "Eeerybody has a view on religion and God" that is evidence-free – faith-based – and thereby supports an ideology (e.g. patriarchy-misogyny-caste) rationalized with logical fallacies and sophistry.Yes of course I have religious views, does not everybody have a view on religion and God? — ButyDude
In this dialectical context, "religious beliefs" are problematic only when they're relied upon in lieu of reasonable assumptions or valid arguments. No one here cares what you "believe", BDude; instead what matters is how good (or poorly) you reason despite (or because of) your unstated, so-caalled "religious beliefs". :mask:... get over my religious beliefs
:clap: Excellent!I highly recommend The Dawn of Everything by anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wingrow. — Joshs
:100: :up: -
Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
:up: :up:The only possible way is if the multiverse is true, if all probabilities has their own branch, but then there's no point in going back in time to do anything as you cannot change the future you came from. It would be closer to traveling to other universes rather than specifically traveling back in time. And any change would only just fraction into new branches ... — Christoffer
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/690858 :nerd: -
Analysis of GoodnessI think it's more reasonable to assume that the meanings of discursive terms like "perfection" "in itself" "good" "moral" "pragmatic" "harmony" "absolute" ... are context-dependent rather than 'Platonic universals' as assumed apparently by the statements in the OP.
some varied (modern) readings:
• On the Genealogy of Morals, F. Nietzsche
• Human Nature and Conduct, J. Dewey
• The Sovereignty of Good, I. Murdoch
• Reasons and Persons, D. Parfit
• Natural Goodness, P. Foot
• Creating Capabilities, M. Nussbaum -
How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?Difficult physics and math subjects are not esoteric in my book, they are just difficult. — Janus
-
What’s your description of Metaphysics?
Well, the circularity of your "metaphysical belief", sir, begs the question. Besides, Christians mostly do not "actually live" Christ-like or miraculous "lives" even though 'Christ & miracles' are explicit "metaphysical beliefs" (e.g. Thomism, Calvinism) just as atheist materialists mostly do not "actually live" purposeless "lives" even though 'the purposelessness of material existence' is an explicit "metaphysical belief (e.g. nihilism, absurdism). Under existential-pragmatic scrutiny, sir, your espousal of Collingwood's absolute idealism does not hold up.I hold that our metaphysical beliefs underpin the way we actually live our lives. — Pantagruel
:up: :up: -
How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?:up: As your "misconcepttion" ... seems to demonstrate.
-
What’s your description of Metaphysics?
Scientists "make" working or methodological assumptions which themselves presuppose "metaphysical" commitments; changing such assumptions can also change what those assumptions presuppose (e.g. Newtonian absolute space & absolute time vs Einsteinian relativistic spacetime vs (background-dependent) string theory vs (background-independent) loop quantum gravity ...)science makes metaphysical presuppositions. — Pantagruel -
How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
I suspect one person's "mysteries" (pace G. Marcel) are another person's misconceptions ... or false positives (D. Dennett) or nostalgias (A. Camus).I do really enjoy philosophy and the exploration of new ways of seeing and framing 'reality'. The mysteries themselves are part of the adventure. — Jack Cummins -
Do you believe in aliens?Yes – a very high probability wherever there is liquid water, etc. :up:
-
Ten Questions About Time-Travel trips:nerd: What I picked-up from conversation with some backtravelers at a local hash bar...
1. Only passengers. Trip duration varies. One way backtravel (to the past) only, no return.
2. Before leaving consult a date-stamped map of destination for areas without buildings at that time.
3. Yes, you will still be you.
4. Wherewhenever you arrive it'll be a 'quantum-fidelity simulation' just like your present.
5. On Earth up to about 2 million years ago – yes there will be living "humans".
6. SOL ...
7. See no. 1: no return. Backtravelers are there for the duration (unless they can build another time machine out of local materials and travel further back in time).
8. See no. 7.
9. Check with time machine operator ...
10. n/a
Nope.If you could go, would you go? — BC
update:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/880112
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum