Jump to content

Eise

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1519
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Eise last won the day on November 27 2019

Eise had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

473 Beacon of Hope

3 Followers

About Eise

  • Rank
    Primate

Profile Information

  • Location
    the old world
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics, Astronomy
  • Biography
    University degree philosophy, subsidary subject physics
  • Occupation
    Database administrator, a bit of Linux too

Recent Profile Visitors

9190 profile views
  1. Thank you for your welcome. But I do not know yet if I am 'back'. It is just that, due to corona measures, I am now working at home (since October), and for some reason it is tiring me more than working in the office. Then additionally to my work, posting meaningful postings here is just another task, instead of fun. So no promise when I chime in again. But be aware! I am still reading the forum nearly every day. And because this was such a clearly real philosophical theme, I had to write my little exposé. No, not necessarily. And as a a heuristic principle, not a methodological
  2. I think it is important too see what Ockham's razor is: it is a heuristic principle, not a criterion for truth. A fine modern translation would be that if you have two theories that explain exactly the same empirical phenomena, then the one which less assumptions is the better one. As an example: the Lorentz transformations were already derived by... eh... Lorentz, and later again by Poincaré, and again later by Einstein. But Einstein's version comes away with only 2 assumptions (relativity and the invariance of the speed of light). But there is an ambiguity in the different formula
  3. Wait what? We don't know the same thing in case of determinism, if everything was pre-determined by origin of the universe. Than we could not have done otherwise, unless we determined that origin as well (by our free will) and that's the origination problem! How is compatibilism empirical, while libertarianism is not? If it was, science could prove free will exists, but it currently cannot! If I have a choice between A and B (say I take the bus or a taxi) these are clearly two options. Now I choose A. Then I am justified to say that 'I could have done B'. Say option C is not open (e.
  4. Bold by me. Why is normal responsibility not enough? Why should it be 'ultimate'. We are also not 'ultimate free'. That is exactly my point: we cannot, formulated a bit more absurdly 'want what we want'. But surely we can do what we want, and that is more or less all what free will is. Really, a concept of free will that requires we should be able to want what we want is a theoretical and a practical absurdity. I think this has to do with the Christian background of our culture: that God, as our perfect creator does no evil, so it must come from humans alone. I.e. by being able to what
  5. That is wrong already. Assuming you mean that 'objects you drop from a tower, without pushing them in any direction', due to the earth's rotation, objects will not fall exactly straight. The top of a (high) tower has a higher speed then the surface of the earth. So an object will follow a curve, closing in to a straight line more and more during its fall. In your citation there is no mentioning of forces, only of movements. The example I gave above might be measurable, but I think that the rest of the movements does not contribute big enough to the deviation of a straight line to be me
  6. Well, you cannot say from such a distance that they are the same birds. I looked at the video. But at 6:44 the helicopter is going downwards, and at 7:41/7:42 it is going up again. And yes, a small group of birds is flying along, in both cases from left to right at about the same height. But there are a lot of birds that do that, e.g. cormorants. I see them a lot in front of my house, and if they just want to move from one location on the water to another, they always fly about 15 cm above the water surface. That the landscape is the same is obvious: their telescope is standing on a tripo
  7. Yes, it is obvious that you are very confused. So why did you do so long as if you understand what 'base' means here? Let's try to explain it 'my way'. You must distinguish between the designator and the designated. E.g. when I ask you what a chair is, you could say 'it is a piece of furniture, that is designed to sit on'. You would feel pretty fooled if I would answer 'no, it is a word of 5 letters'. (I should have written then 'chair', between single quotes, to make clear that I meant the designator, not the designated. But hey, I wanted to fool you.) On the other side the same designat
  8. If it would be so easy to observe the effects of gravitational waves, why do you think this 'discovery' would not already be done earlier? The first (indirect!) proof of gravitational waves was with binary neutron stars: very, very heavy bodies compared to Jupiter, showing that their orbit is slowing down, but in an extremely slow pace. We already have explanations for the structure of Saturn's rings: orbit resonances with the many moons of Saturn.
  9. Funny: Daniel Dennett's first book about free will 'Elbow Room' has as subtitle 'The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting'. In this book he defends his compatibilist version of free will. The libertarian version of free will is simply not empirical: we do not know that we 'could have done otherwise' (in the literal meaning), we do not know the physical causes of our feelings and thoughts simply because we are a 'higher level phenomenon' of the brain: we cannot access our neural level ("Gosh, my neuron LQ225-ZH-5,768,231,234" is firing again and again! I must be hungry."). The idea of libe
  10. Sorry, that again does not touch my argument. In my concept of free will, we need (sufficient) determinism, so how can there be a contradiction? This is what happens in most discussions between me and 'free-will deniers': I propose a definition of free will that necessarily needs determinism, and as reaction I get "But we are determined, so we have no free will". Do you see that that does not make much sense? Remember my definition: Your argument does not work if you take this definition of free will. Nowhere do I imply that your actions are not determined. You seem to be
  11. With due respect for the difficulties you have to formulate your points, couldn't you boil it down to the essential argument in your above posting? Just a few points that caught my attention By the capability of (at least human) animals to anticipate the future, dependent on how they think it will develop dependent on what actions they could do. And that is not a contradiction with the brain being determined. I fully agree that physics only give us causal determination (I don't know why you are using 'pre-determined'. What does this 'pre' mean for you?). And determinism is a
  12. I have no idea what different perspectives of objects in the same FOR have to do with relativity which is about how observers in different FOR measure time and space. And I remember you have serious problems already with perspective... "Analogies are like cars: if you take them too far, they break down." (Don't remember where I saw that, but it applies very well here). Please test your ideas at the examples of time dilation/length contraction of muons. Can you explain these with your ideas? And did you look up the 'paradox of the pole in the barn'? If you work this through, you
  13. You mean something like this, but then bigger?
  14. Wow. You want to argue that there is an error in relativity, but you did not understand Janus' diagrams? The message of the diagrams is, that you cannot account for the situation you created, without taking the relativity of simultaneity into account. As you don't in any of your diagrams, you will fail. It is obvious for everybody here that you argue against something that is over your head. To be honest, as you probably noticed, it is also partially above my head. But my mindset is different than yours: understanding the basic principles, knowing that special relativity is fully integrated in
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.