General Philosophy

I just want to ask this question for you to become aware.We all know that logic is one of the major fuel which runs our rationality which is portrayed through science.But I dare you by asking this question ( if you don't know or cultivate an answer,just leave it).Is our reality can always be represented thru logic ? or are there parts of reality which logic can't be applied? Tnx in advance for those who sincerely and conducively replied.And I'm pleased to meet you all.

As far as I know there are some Physicists who consider Space-Time to be an actual physical thing whereas others regard it as merely an abstract concept - Brian Greene expressed his belief that the results from Gravity Probe B confirm this. What is the general consensus of this?

Three hairs in Loki`s soup In former times humans were on more familiar terms with gods and they could even bound Loki to serve them a soup of the gods. But Loki wouldn´t have been Loki if he thereby did not plot some tricks: He added three hairs to the soup, which became eatable only if all were found and removed. 1) The first hair was discovered by Pythagoras and Euclid: “ The square root of two is irrational”, i.e. it is not representable as a fraction of two integers - and there is a infinite amount of such numbers. As they could not remove this hair, the humans got used to swallow this irrational lumps in their soup for over two thousand years. 2) The second h…

When I read about the question of, if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe it causes me to consider: What exactly is the measure of "intelligent life". The resultant scores on I.Q. tests of humans is usually represented as a bell-shaped normal distribution with the mean (and I think mode), of the range being 100 points. As a former (retired) teacher, I have observed that a person with an I.Q. score of 100 will demonstrate little of what could be expected of an "intelligent" person despite being referred to as "average". Persons with 100 I.Qs will not likely rise to be mathematicians, rocket engineers, surgeons, etc... they will be manual workers do…

-- This is a spin-off of the thread "is space-time a physical entity [..]" -- A lot of people think that special relativity doesn't make sense and that it's hopeless to try to understand it; we are condemned to "shut up and calculate". However, I know of two physical models that can be used to explain the theoretical predictions, and possibly there is another model that I don't know of. [edit]: To be perfectly clear, with "physical models" I here mean two competing hypothetical physical entities that have been proposed to make sense of the phenomena as described by relativity theory. Right from the start it was perfectly possible to make sense of relativity by…

I read a article in Scientific American from December's issue and it is great. My question is and regards Qubit's of information regarding the article. Does anyone think its possible that space time is built on information (meaning quantum bit). If so then the universe was created though the word as God states and maybe some form of Gematria as in math formulas for the code. As I see it space time is non-tangible like information so I think its possible; but the process they go about setting up their model to discover this would have to be a elaborate and vast software program to mimic the expanding universe instead of the in the bottle approach. What are your…

Is there a relationship between these two areas? Does it make sense to talk about them in this generalist,absolutist way? Does the micro "cause" the macro or can it be imagined that it could actually be the other way around? If the universe began with one thing ,could it be considered a macro object which went on to "spawn" micro objects? Does the whole concept of "began" not hold water in the first place and also does this concept of the macro and the micro as two distinct areas not hold water either?

All A computational universe must be logically consistent and logically complete. If it weren't it would tear itself apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not exist. < huge plug for book removed - no more ads please>

The principle of SOMETHING that ' Sifts' information so as to provide a solution; ' identifies ' a specific piece of knowledge; or 'filters out ' a possible required action. This appears to be fundamental to a lot of modern computer or I- pad technology. Does this mean , ' that they are ', also essential to ' Life Itself ' ? Mike

Science searches the truth. If science has an incomplete explanation of reality (since it is still discovering the mysteries of reality) how can people already established a strong belief of something, yet science is not completely explaining the reality?

These are the questions that could not be easily answered.But for the sake of awareness for everybody here, I want to share these questions to you specially to those who already accept the multiverse theory. The questions points on the multiverse source of energy to create multiple universes.My questions are: 1. Is the source of energy infinite?Why the source of energy is infinite? 2. Where did this source of energy came from?Did it have a beginning? 3.Is space outside this observable universe (if there is really an outside) infinite? These are my inquiries.Response are greatly appreciated.Thank you....

I put the continuation here for those who want to threat time philosophically.What is time? is it an independent entity or just a measurement dependent on the changing property of matter? can we test or detect it? or it's just on the mathematics of G.R. Answers are very much appreciated.We should cultivate ideas here so that we can contribute to the advancement of philosophical as well as scientific knowledge.We know science is the search for truth.Thank you.

THE AXIOM OF EXISTENCE Something rather than nothing exists because only existence can exist. Non-existence or nothingness cannot exist because nothingness is non-existence and only existence can exist. Thus nothingness cannot exist and can never have existed. Only existence exists or has ever existed or can ever exist. Thus there is not and never was and never could or can be a nothingness out of which something came into being. There is and has always been only existence and whatever forms exist within it. There is not even nothing outside of existence, or before or after or beyond existence. There is no outside or before or after or beyond existence. There is o…

This is a spin-off from a parallel discussion here, in the context of different explanations of SR. The compatibility of 3D Space with SR was put in doubt (if I correctly understood it!) based on the argument that 3D space implies presentism, and presentism is incompatible with SR. I suspect that there's an error somewhere in that logical scheme. Mordred wrote: I could not follow that argument, regretfully... But before getting into details: it was next suggested that usually "presentism" implies a classical Newtonian concept of time. If that is correct, then it doesn't apply to Lorentzian 3D Space. Then, does your argument still stand, do you think? …

"and so it turned out only a life similar to the life of those around jus,merging with it without a ripple, is genuine life, and that an unshared happiness is not happiness" ~ Dr. Zhivago, Boris Pasternak Is happiness only real when shared? We are social creatures. By living in a group you used to increase the chance to survive and create offspring.

Perhaps a trivial and slightly specialist question . We are told that it is "real" as opposed to being an artifact of observational techniques. (I am not disputing this) Does this definition of "real" coincide with the meaning of "real" that comes up in numerous threads when the question of whether we "can know reality" comes up. ? There seems to be a dichotomy in the case of "Time Dilation " where we are warned not to consider it as an artifact of our sensory or observational apparatus but embedded in the reality of the (geometry of ) the universe. Can anyone clear up this confusion in my mind (as to the way the word "really" is being used i…

The last Newtonian law of classical mechanics "To every action there is an equal but opposite reaction" was in fact formulated by an Arab. The law has been wrongly ascribed to Newton.

Well ,one universe actually. Physically speaking ,does it seem more correct to view the observable universe (+ deducible universe?) as a connected entity or as a conglomeration of parts that have a degree of independence? Does it matter? Is it just what it is and is there no need to define it according to our preconceptions?

It seems to me that the world is run by old white European guys for other white European guys and their descendants. European philosophy dominates the philosophical world, Eastern philosophy resides in a handful of books- Tao Te Ching, Analects, Buddhist teachings, the Vedas... Where is the equality of fair play? Why are European philosophical prognostications more valuable than this of the East? Or have white men so dominated the fields of academia that white domination over thought is seen as normative behaviour in a white dominated society and socio economic system? Can this paradigm ever be shifted?

Not sure how mainstream an idea this is. I think we all know that we do not know the size or structure of the Universe (not the observable Universe , the Universe) And we can talk (maybe to limited effect) about the Universe as opposed to the observable Universe because we can (and do ,I guess) assume that the Universe does not stop just because we cannot observe it So here is my idea. : What we see as the observable Universe may well be finite in that it may have had a beginning and may also eventually have a thermal death but ,outside this observed /observable Universe there may (or may not) be other regions where similar things are happening. …

Hello. I am currently studying "Introduction to Logic" 2nd Edition by Harry J. Gensler and I have a question about writing logical proofs. The book's preferred method is one of assuming the opposite of an argument and then taking the original argument apart while looking for a contradiction to arise. If a contradiction arises from assuming the opposite of the original conclusion, then (in a binary system of true and false statements) the original conclusion is proven to follow and the argument is said to be valid. My question is this: I know that in mathematics it is very common - even required - to prove a statement; that is, a claim will be made and then a proof wil…

I am reading this interesting article about propaganda in WW2 and the thought (not for the first time )occurred to me that the relationship between the individual and society as a whole is an interesting one. http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20161021-the-psychological-tricks-used-to-help-win-world-war-two The analogy of the quantum/classical relationship springs to mind (in all likelihood to be easily debunked)but I wonder are there similar circumstances where there is a micro/macro relationship along these lines? I think .probably I should be including my "individual vs society" example as any one of the fascinating swarm mechanisms that have been the su…

url deleted - advertising (see rule 2.7) My dream to complete Albert Einstein's homework. To unify the forces of gravity and electromagnetism into one equation, that goes back to the big bang, when the universe began; In hopes of inspiring a better source for global education, to break down all conspiracies of misinformation, and provide better scientific education from a variety of lessons for the sake of improving universities, observatories, and space agencies. I want to change the way information is shared globally. Because in my opinion there is not a proper resource, there needs to be a scientifically driven education domain to help coordinate our efforts, and prom…

is it possible that we should not classify humans as animals; because they have a natural better understanding of the world in the bigger picture? I dont know how hominids thought but i think even they question their existence and in almost any circumstance create tools and lead to doing science. I think science is the main way we advance. we do experiments and observe the world. so is it possible to put humans in a different category because of the fact that they are mentally too different? maybe this just comes from the fact that I hate when people call humans animals. it makes it seem like we have not evolved, but i am always amazed of how evolved we actually are and …

Another half -baked idea that I have put in this sub forum (with permission hopefully) I appreciate that Einstein accepted that the speed of light was a constant regardless of the inertial frame of reference without necessarily going into the "why" and I also think it may be the case that he was making his theory before the MM (non) results came through.... So I have this idea (if it is an idea) that we could perhaps regard the maximum speed limit ( which applies to massless particles) as more of a "base" speed that existed at the outset of the universe ( a default speed perhaps ). As the universe evolved particles ,depending on circumstance tend …