So can we agree that Science is Philosophy that doesn't deal with meaning and value because those doesn't have objective metrics? — Nickolasgaspar

Science is full of meanings and values that are germane to discussions within those disciplines. It's usually the scientists who participate. Whether they perform "philosophy" when doing so seems irrelevant.

How about the idea that metaphysics is the condition of possibility for understanding the theoretical framework within which proven facts make sense in the first place? — Joshs

So metaphysics is foundational, without which interpreting scientific results and speculations go nowhere? This is a bit vague for me, but my background in philosophy is limited. When I think of metaphysics I think of infinitesimals. I need specific examples of concepts in order to understand the concepts. I don't think of string theory as metaphysical, although it may be seen as a result of an initial metaphysical trigger.

The conclusion is that science has never ceased being ‘philosophical’ in the sense that theoretical frameworks represent a naive metaphysics. — Joshs

I agree if pondering implies philosophical.

↪jgill

IMHO your disagreement is not sufficiently informed.
First of all not all speculations are Philosophical We are only referring to structured hypothetical frameworks.
Now science , before leaving the Philosophical Academia was identified as Natural Philosophy. ALL hypotheses formed within science are by default Metaphysics(philosophy), as long as they obey the principles of Methodological Naturalism's, the rules of logic and the established epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar

You are probably correct. Certainly science evolved in philosophical frameworks. But I think apart from logical structures science is no longer philosophical. Just the way I see it as a a non-philosopher. Once the technicalities of an idea require extensive specialized knowledge that idea becomes speculation by the scientists involved. I consider string theory to be speculative science as long as there is the faintest possibility it can be experimentally verified. If it were clearly shown to be non-verifiable, well, that's a different thing.

Now, there are concepts in science/mathematics that I do in fact believe are philosophical, metaphysical to be exact. Infinitesimals, conjectured by Leibniz and others, are objects of metaphysics. They can be considered foundational in analysis and support a mathematical structure that describes much of the physical world. But they cannot be proven to exist.

I read the section of your thesis on the composition problem. I'm familiar with weak emergence, but strong emergence focuses on consciousness and is deeply philosophical. That all tiny entities that compose to create something grander contain or exhibit the same impression as the larger composition is certainly not the case in weak emergence, which may not be fertile ground for philosophical discourse. Nice paper.

EVERY single scientific hypothesis is philosophy before it is verified or rejected.
String theory is metaphysics — Nickolasgaspar

It depends on whether speculation in the sciences is "philosophy". I think it is not. Even the definition of speculative philosophy is something different.

Do young people still read books? BITD long ago when the English teacher would assign a classic novel we would go to Classic Comics. Nowadays they probably go to Youtube for their quick analysis.

Sinful, ain't it? :snicker:

Apparently many critics of WAP are conservative Republicans rather than liberal Democrats. This pushes me out of the centrist lane and toward the right. Is it porn satire or just garbage?

Mathematics consists of ideals — Metaphysician Undercover

It's an immense subject - Wikipedia has over 26,000 mathematics articles - consisting of a lot more than Platonic ideals. There's a tremendous amount of material concerning how various entities relate to one another. How one theorem gives rise to another, etc. You have a peculiar understanding of the subject.

Measurements work pretty well for something "fundamentally flawed". Try to not be fascinated by the word "incommensurable". It's not the death knoll of math.

I am mostly a constructivist in that my theorems are generally not indirect, but include processes for obtaining mathematical objects. Certain fundamental objects might be considered ideals, but arguing them into new results doesn't make those results ideals. Especially if one creates rather than discovers math - a can of worms.

No one says math is perfect. But it is interesting and useful.

Have you read the book? As I noted, it has some interesting stuff in it. But the main idea seems farfetched. — T Clark

Yes, some time ago. It's around the house somewhere, so I'll try to find it. The notion of voices in one's head from the various gods of the time - a kind of schizophrenia - doesn't seem so outlandish to me. But fun to contemplate.

That's exactly the problem. I thought mathematics was supposed to provide us with precision, perfection in our understanding. Then I was disillusioned, realizing that it's all a facade, and deep misunderstanding lies behind. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, something that is not perfect is deeply flawed?

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." An odd, odd book whose major premise I have a hard time swallowing — T Clark

But it's easy to think of the ancient Greek getting an idea and thinking it is a God speaking to him.

please dissect the taste of chocolate ice cream. — jgill


1. Creamy.
2. Chocolatey.
3. Cold.
Always happy to help. — unenlightened

C-

You forgot sweet.

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

Followed by several intense volumes on the meanings of the punch lines.



For your next project please dissect the taste of chocolate ice cream.

Of the following, I can see intuitively why #2 would be true, but I haven't a clue as to why #1 and #3 are. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, curious isn't it? A problem is that this is an existence theorem. I've never used it for this reason, going instead with Banach's theorem that incorporates a procedure for actually finding such a point (which is unique). In the Brouwer theorem the function f(z)=z means all points are fixed points.

I believe you mean polysemy (a feature) and not ambiguity (a bug). — Agent Smith

Merriam-Webster:

Above the level of molecular biology, the notion of "gene" has become increasingly complex. The chapter in which Ridley addresses the ambiguities of this slippery word is an expository tour de force. He considers seven possible meanings of gene as used in different contexts: a unit of heredity; an interchangeable part of evolution; a recipe for a metabolic product; … a development switch; a unit of selection; and a unit of instinct.

But if you like polysemy, be my guest. Although, to me, it seems unseemly. :roll:

math is a constructed world and in being that it has an advantage viz. precise definitions — Agent Smith

Well, there are lots of ambiguities in mathematical symbolism. The equal symbol for example, then the idea of transforms and transformations, etc. In advanced math one has to consider context to interpret accurately.

Even intuitionism (Brouwer's & Heyting's) and constructivism (like Bishop's) are mostly ignored in universities — jas0n

Mathematicians in analysis or topology mostly know Brouwer for his famous Fixed Point theorem .

Have you heard of The Teakettle principle — Agent Smith

Even having been a prof of mathematics I learn something about the subject on this forum. Never came across this. :smile:

The ultimate goal of the philosopher is to see themselves acting as copies of the gods in heaven — EugeneW

Someone had to say it. Everyone on TPF knows it down deep inside. Now that it's in the open one can stand erect, proud to advance what we all know to be true! :halo:

So, x = nothing (no, not zero, nothing), and x = ∞. That means ∞+1=∞. Mathematics breaks down! — Agent Smith

And this is an example of mysticism? Obsession with lemniscates will lead to no good. Please see your psychoanalyst. :chin:

For instance: Global warning. First, you have to put it in a question form, to enable philosophy to answer it. So: how can we stop global warming? Philosophy may answer, "create a plan and follow it which will make global warming go away." — god must be atheist

That should do it.

The connection between ecstasy and flow is addressed here — ZzzoneiroCosm

Not sure about the connection. When I speak of flow in action I'm talking of the phenomenon that a one-time acquaintance, Mihály Csíkszentmihályi , defined years ago. We climbed at Devils Lake and he observed flow there I suspect, as well as in other forms of artistic athletics. Not ecstasy.

Heidegger spoke of two modes of existence — ZzzoneiroCosm

Only two? What of the mode of complete involvement with an action in which we lose sense of self and immerse in the flow? Is this part of one of the two modes? I wouldn't equate it with ecstasy, however.

Do they pay you that little? — EugeneW

They haven't paid me anything the last twenty two years. :sad:

It's not pure emptiness, as you know... — EugeneW

Yes, the aether of fields interacting, etc. I find that hard to visualize as well.

Do you find curved space hard to imagine? — EugeneW

According to Feynman Einstein defined mean curvature of space in the following way:

If there is a region of space with matter in it and we take a sphere small enough that the density ρ of matter inside it is effectively constant, then the radius excess for the sphere is proportional to the mass inside the sphere.

In other words, you measure the surface area, A, and measure the radius,r, then compute
$r'=r-\sqrt{\frac{A}{2\pi }}$
The "radius excess" is the mean curvature of space in that region. The actual formula is a tad more involved.

Yes. I find it difficult to imagine emptiness being curved. To "see" the curvature you need some sort of physical object like a line or a sphere or a triangle. Way beyond my pay grade. :cool:

No. What "bends" is spacetime, which does not have the Euclidean metric in R^4. The Euclidean metric is how we normally measure spacial dimensions. — jgill

No. What bends is space. — EugeneW

I owe my friend an apology. Space does warp in the presence of great mass. "Bending" or "curving" on the other hand requires definitions, like the three interior angles of a triangle not adding to 180 degrees exactly. Not sure if that has ever been verified near the surface of the Earth.

To be is to be and to be perceived is to be and be perceived — jgill

What's a tautology? — Agent Smith

That long sentence of which this was a part was meant as a joke. If you took that goblygook seriously, see your mental health professional :razz:

The forum is presently dominated by fools with little to no grasp of basic philosophical or logical notions and yet with thoroughgoing confidence in their opinions; by those who have failed to learn how to learn — Banno

:ok:

1. To be is to be perceived
2. To be perceived is to be. — Agent Smith

Hardly. To be is to be and to be perceived is to be and be perceived while in the state of perception allowing one to realize one is being perceived, even as perception - being uncaused - shifts from one being perceived to another awaiting perception in order to be.

Nevertheless, if Europe is denied fossil fuel products from Russia, the US must reopen drilling and exploration in order to reach the point of human extinction due to all that CO2 in a reasonable time.

The clock's ticking.

Funny thing that your quote definitely excludes mathematics as a branch of philosophy — god must be atheist

It's too rigorous to be considered philosophy. :cool:

Is there a cause having the effect of T Clark leaving the room?

Perhaps not, like the instantaneous decay of a uranium atom. :chin:

Sartre'sThe Look:

The mere possible presence of another person causes one to look at oneself as an object and see one's world as it appears to the other. This is not done from a specific location outside oneself, but is non-positional. This is a recognition of the subjectivity in others.

(Wiki)

I have found this to be a profound truth. Especially in certain dangerous activities.

I see massless geometrical, nonpointlike interacting triplets of preons — EugeneW

As well as reaching out and bending space to your will. Your grasp of nothing is exceptional :cool:

I feel like a teacher correcting a school essay here, and I could just ignore all that, but I also feel that I have something to say, because I believe that clear and correct descriptions are very important in here. — Alkis Piskas

Good luck with that. A Nobel undertaking. Let's start with a clear and correct definition of "being". :cool:

It [empty space] doesn't bend unless there is a mass to bend it — Constance

No. What "bends" is spacetime, which does not have the Euclidean metric in R^4. The Euclidean metric is how we normally measure spacial dimensions. We need Kenosha Kid (PhD physics) to return and explain this stuff. :chin:

I don't personally see the nature of consciousness being emergent — Shwah

I don't give it much thought. On the other hand weak emergence runs throughout my explorations in dynamical systems in the complex plane. Interesting link though. Thanks.

Also do philosophers need credentials to be called philosophers? — TiredThinker

Well, I could call myself a philosopher and others would let that pass without comment. But if I called myself a mathematician, some sort of proof - like credentials - might be expected. Philosophy is poorly defined, a collection of notions tied together with loose verbal strings.

Some think that the only example of strong emergence is consciousness.

Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of a high-level system upon its components; qualities produced this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts.[11] The whole is other than the sum of its parts. It is argued then that no simulation of the system can exist, for such a simulation would itself constitute a reduction of the system to its constituent parts.[10] Physics lacks well-established examples of strong emergence, unless it is interpreted as the impossibility in practice to explain the whole in terms of the parts. Practical impossibility may be a more useful distinction than one in principle, since it is easier to determine and quantify, and does not imply the use of mysterious forces, but simply reflects the limits of our capability.

(Wiki)

It creates multiple shapes etc and people have tried to map what shapes are created (when birds appear and . . . — Shwah

Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level.

(Wiki)

Observe my avatar as an example.

What if you put mass in it? — EugeneW

Be my guest. It distorts spacetime in the appropriate metric. Space by itself doesn't bend.

There is at least one existence that has no prior causality for its existence, it simply is — Philosophim

Guess that "depends on the definition of is." :smirk:

The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950,[2] is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.

(Wiki)

What if we lower the bar a bit and check if AI can mimic a person of low IQ & EQ, almost no GK, and perhaps even a bit cuckoo? — Agent Smith

I see no contradiction.

But this is just what I say space cannot have. Try to conceive of something bending without a medium in which something can bend. — Constance

There is curved space - a type of geometry, and there is spacetime curvature, a way to interpret general relativity.

Empty space doesn't bend, IMO. :chin: