Eise

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Eise, you didn't address John's very good comment.

What did I miss? If you imagine the observer, then what he will see1, is that the apple is blue. You see that because your visual system sees2 blue light, instead of red. Just shift the meaning of to see to see1 and I addressed John's argument.

Furyan5  used the words 'to see' and to 'to detect'. But that leaves his absurd sounding 'one cannot see light' standing. With my artificial difference between 'to see1' and 'to see2' it is always clear what I mean:

You can see1 macro objects, thanks to reflecting or emitting light. We cannot see2 macro objects.

We can see2 light, but we cannot see2 macro objects because they do not enter our eyes. 

Everything clear? 

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

That's just an opinion, it's not defined  what philosophy is.

It is not defined exactly. If it really would not be defined, your OP would be meaningless: science is a subfield of 'something undefined'. How can one decide such a question if we do not agree about what philosophy is at all?

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

And cosmology is a branch of metaphysics.

It once was. Modern metaphysics has nothing to do with that. See e.g. David Armstrong.

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

How can anyone argue that you can't see light, when you can see the colour change?

That is simple: you see the colour of the apple change. Not of the light itself.

It all boils down to the difference between how we 'see' different things:

• We 'see' the macro objects around us, because light is reflected by them or they emit light themselves
• We cannot 'see' light because it reflects light or it emits light; we can 'see' light directly, if it hits the eye

So in the first point light is just the means to see the things around us. But using light to see light simply does not work. (What do you do in a hell lit room, with a very faint light source? Do you turn one more lights, or do you turn the room lights off? What the hell is that, something you see better in the dark?)

Furyan5 furiously pleads that the second meaning of 'seeing' does not count as seeing. If it would be an important philosophical topic (it is definitely not a physics topic!), philosophers would split up the two concepts of seeing with the help of two different words: one can 'see1' macro objects, and one can 'see2' light. And then try to solve the real problem behind it. In this case however, I do not see any real problem. We all agree more or less on the facts of seeing.

But it is a nice intellectual exercise: try to understand the opponent, find different concepts that can lurk behind the same word, and so try to light up the intellectual problem, see the root cause of the seemingly different views on the facts. In this case it really is nothing more than an intellectual exercise. ('Light' metaphors used intentionally...)

47 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is there any worthwhile  distinction between detecting light directly  from its source and detecting it after it has reflected off a third ( or later  object) ?

Worthwhile? At most in the context of this discussion...

To your question: Yes, there is. If you see a car, then you see it because it reflects light. In such a case it is pretty unusual to say "I see light...wait... from the light I deduce that it is reflected by a car. So there must be a car there!" No, you would say "I see a car".

Now try to see a light beam passing next to you (so it is not detected by your eyes! No single photon of the light beam enters your eyes, it is not shining on a screen or a wall). Shining light on it will not help you to see the light beam. In this sense (but only in this sense!) one could say that light is invisible. You cannot make it visible by pointing a  torch at it, as you could do with a car.

Worthwhile?

22 hours ago, Furyan5 said:

If the fact we agree on is 'that we can't see light' (visually perceive photons), then yes. 

Facts are expressed by words. If we can agree on the meaning of words, only then we can possibly agree on the facts. Otherwise the same sentences mean different things to different people. Maybe it would help to formulate the facts unambiguously. So let's try 2 contrasting facts:

1. You can make a material, macroscopic object visible by shining light on it (e.g. a car).
2. You cannot make a light beam (that passes by) visible by shining light on it.

Do we all agree on these 2 facts?

I am wondering if people here disagree on some physical or biological facts, or just the semantics of the the verb 'to see'. If the latter, is such a heavy discussion necessary when all agree about the facts? 

16 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

No. But you cannot prove that your opinion is more valid, unlike science.

That still means that every opinion in philosophy is equally valid. Do you really think that?

Example:

1. Humans exist of 2 substances that can exist independently: res extensa and res cogitans, which are interconnected in the pineal gland. (Cartesian dualism)

2. The mind is a function of the living brain.

You think these are equally valid?

12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

No

We mostly see things that reflect light.

Sorry, had to express me a bit clearer. If we say 'I see a light', we mostly mean that we see something emitting light: lights of a car, or a torch, or whatever. But there are some other cases, e.g. if you see light at the end of a tunnel.

But generally you are right, we see things because they reflect light.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't think you see the torch. To borrow from John's point above, what color is the torch?

The colour of the light bulb? Of course a torch doesn't light itself.

17 hours ago, MigL said:

The point I'm trying to make is that light, or photons, are the information carriers. And while we 'see' by interacting with the information carriers, a photon itself cannot transmit any information about itself ( it would need to radiate light ) for us to be able to 'see' it.
I.E. photons are invisible.

 everything else is semantics.

I think you nailed it, MigL. 

When it is dark in a room, I can see things by turning on the light: they reflect photons. But I cannot do the same with photons themselves. If there is a light beam in the further dark room, I cannot see the light beam. I still cannot see it if I turn on the light (it becomes even worse...)

If we 'see' light, we mostly mean we see something that emits light. If I look into a beam of a torch I do not see light: I see the torch. But if we do not recognise the source of the light, it is very usual to say 'I see some light'. 

But I fully agree that it is semantics. It is clear that if photons are detected by our eyes, we see 'something'. So it is very understandable that we say we can see light. In my opinion however, the question is not of much importance. So I have no idea why the emotions are cooking so high. I do not see how deciding for the correct semantics any important scientific or human problem is cleared of solved.

1 hour ago, Lord Antares said:

Almost every opinion is as valid as every other and in most cases, nothing to be correct about; it's just views on different things.

So in philosophy, one learns a lot of opinions, and there is no argumentation about the validity of these opinions. Every philosophical 'opinion' is just as valid as any other? And that is the reason one can study it at university level?

On 27.1.2018 at 12:52 PM, Itoero said:

What do you think of this statement?

That it is wrong. The topic of science is empirical reality: physics studies matter, chemistry studies chemical reactions, biology the living nature etc etc. Philosophy studies our way of thinking, tries to find out which ways of thinking lead to valid conclusions.

Somebody who studies matter is a physicist; somebody who studies how a physicist comes to valid conclusions (i.e. reflects about the scientific method), is a philosopher. (Of course somebody can be both). Another example is morality: somebody who asks what action seems moral to him is considering morality. Somebody who reflects on how people argue for how we think morally, and what kind of arguments may lead to valid moral propositions is an ethicist, i.e. he is doing philosophy.

It seems to me that you see scientific speculation as philosophy. It is not. Good scientific speculations lead to predictions that can be empirically tested. And even scientific speculations where we have yet no idea how we can test them, are still not philosophy, because of their topic: things in reality, not our way of thinking.

11 hours ago, studiot said:

I'm sorry to say that neither the wider physics community nor I interpret Einstein's writing in such a narrow way.

Sorry, I am just looking at the text. Einstein very clearly says:

Quote

The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:—

And these are the principles:

Quote

1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

From these principles he derives the rest, including the independence of the velocity of light for the observer. I assume he could have done it the other way round: take observer-independence, and from there derive emitter-independence. But he clearly does it the other way round. 

11 hours ago, studiot said:

You are sadly missing both my and his major and most important points about his breakthrough.

No idea why you think that. When from both postulates follows that for every emitter and observer the velocity of light is c, then it is clear that in this article special relativity 'is born'. 

15 hours ago, Tub said:

" Science and... Philosophy...each have their own integrity as methods of inquiry, constructing their own models of reality without mutual interference. "

Every science has its own domain and methods. E.g. functional explanations have nothing to do in physics, but they are very important in biology. Philosophy has its own domain, namely our way of thinking, so not empirical reality. For empirical reality we have the sciences. However, as soon as science reflects on its own concepts and methods, it is doing philosophy. As I said in some other thread, the topic of physics is not physics, but certain aspects of empirical reality.

16 hours ago, Tub said:

as Eise said, Science supplies the " how? " and Philosophy the " why? ".

I did not say that, that was Phi for All. And I also do not agree. The 'why-question' is much too ambiguous: why does the stone fall? Because of gravity. That is definitely not philosophy. If we ask for reasons, not for causes, then it still can be exact science: why do mammals have a heart? To let the blood flow through their bodies. Still not philosophy.

17 hours ago, Tub said:

Science can explain how i laugh, Philosophy can tell me why i laugh

No. Why you laugh is a question of psychology, which is also a science (at least it tries to be). If it is justified to laugh might be a philosophical question (an ethical one, maybe. Some jokes are terribly tasteless, on the cost of Jews, Blacks, Muslims, women... you name it.)

17 hours ago, studiot said:

So what is this a statement of if not to say that the c is independent of the observer?

Well, I think the 2. postulate is clear: it is about the emitter of light. The location you cite seems the derivation to me, that it also means that the velocity of light is the same for all observers.

17 hours ago, studiot said:

You haven't addressed my question why would he not address observers in some way since it was already known that the velocity of waves were independent of the emitters and this was published before the quantum duality was proposed, so the prevailing theory of light was still Young's wave theory.

I am over-asked. (Is that English?). I assume Einstein wanted to start with postulates as close to the normal ideas of physics in his time. Independence from the emitter must not have been a problem, as waves propagate with a fixed velocity in it medium. But how he gets at independence of the observer is not clear to me. 

49 minutes ago, studiot said:

Okay, definition, description, explanation of scope ....... What's in a word?

 

Well, the definition of a description is different from a definition of a definition. If you know what I mean... 

12 hours ago, studiot said:

I thought the innovation was that the speed of light was the same for all observers.

This is what distinguishes it from previous knowledge since in classical wave theory the wave speed depends upon the medium and is independent of the emitter.

Well, I think it is best to let Einstein speak for himself:

Quote

1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

So in the second postulate he really is referring to the emitter only. I assume this excludes two (logical) possible scenarios:

1. Light is moving in a medium, like sound. A jet close to the velocity of sound will 'see' the sound moving slower from him in the direction of his flight.
2. If light exists of particles (material) the velocity of the emitter should be added.

I found it always interesting that in popular explanations usually the observer is considered, not the emitter. Wonder why. Because it is easier to explain?

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Do you not find arguing over a definition like "the definition of Philosophy is...." pointless?

More or less. Therefore I referred to the curriculum of academic philosophy: just lookup what is done at university under the flag of philosophy. Then, if one still wants a definition, it should match these topics.

But you are right, I would prefer a description above a definition of philosophy. Which is what I did in my first posting in this thread.

On 05/01/2018 at 4:38 PM, dimreepr said:

My question is more about the crossover point, the place on the spectrum where free will becomes an illusion. If we can train soldiers to kill without remorse and people are naturally unwilling to kill, the crossover point is skewed due to previous experience; how then can we be sure which is which?

Can you please clarify your question? Which spectrum? 

There is no spectrum from libertarian free will to compatibilist free will, so it seems you are introducing a new topic.

1 hour ago, a common mechanism said:

1) He is considered as the first scientist not because of methodology but because he sought truth from nature rather than from mythology.  Methodology only differ between ancient science and modern science, while your definition is based on methodology. Well, you are  entitle to have your idea but only the idea survive if it fit the fact. 

But today that would be the demarcation between science and pseudo-science. Would you call Samuel Hahnemann, the grounder of homeopathy a scientist? If Thales was one, then he was one too. Hahnemann had a method (even if it was very incomplete, and therefore lead to wrong conclusions).

1 hour ago, a common mechanism said:

Why? because the laws that philosophy studies are at a much deeper level and indeed at the most fundamental level. 

Can you give examples of such 'philosophical laws'?

3 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

It was consistent with the definition  from the department of philosophy, Charles Sturt university  university.

I did not find a definition of philosophy on the Charles Sturt university. I am bad at googling, or it really isn't there. Can you provide a link and citation?

11 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

Re:Eise' comment: "Considered by whom? Not by me"

Have good look. . https://www.google.com/search?q=thales+the+first+scientist&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS764US773&oq=thales+the+first+scientist&aqs=chrome..69i57.10342j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on

I think it was clear that I do not consider him a scientist. He made his self no ideas about methodology, like Galileo or Francis Bacon. He is always mentioned in history of science and philosophy because he was the first to explain the world based on natural and rational principles, not on the whims of gods. 

11 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

The word "believe" I used was trying to be moderate, courteous  rather than being commanding and arrogant. It is widely used in a civilised world.

I know. But is a bit funny to say 'believe' here, when you can just look up the curriculum of philosophy of any university, and see what the topics are. It is like saying 'I believe that the sun is a big burning sphere of coal'. It is not a question of belief (even when it is meant courteously), you can just look up what the experts say. In the case of philosophy you can just look what the contents of the academic disciplines are. Your description ("philosophy deals with the most fundamental issues while science deals with the issues that based on the fundamental issues. This means the laws that govern all science issues are based on the fundamental laws that govern the whole universe. The study of philosophy is to look into these fundamental laws.") has nothing to do what is presently done under the flag of 'philosophy' at universities.

Quote

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which is which?

We have compatibilist free will. It is based on (sufficient) determinism.

We do not have libertarian free will. It is contradictory with determinism. Randomness is no option as explained in my posting above.

On 2.1.2018 at 4:12 PM, Itoero said:

True but those wishes and beliefs are formed by experiences/acquired knowledge...they don't just appear all of a sudden.

Right. But what would free will be, when it was detached from what you are? So of course 'they don't just appear all of a sudden'. That is not a serious criterion for free will.

On 2.1.2018 at 4:12 PM, Itoero said:

You constantly make choices/decisions  and some of them you can relate to free will.

Which ones?

These?

On 2.1.2018 at 4:12 PM, Itoero said:

When there seems to be a random aspect in the choice making, people call it 'free will'.

Do you you belong to these people? If you do, you are wrong. Randomness has nothing to with free will. Just imagine all your actions would be random. What would they have to do with your motivations and believes? If they have nothing to do with what you are, how can one recognise his actions as really his actions? How can this be free will?

On 2.1.2018 at 4:29 PM, EdEarl said:

Our mind forms illusions, delusions and approximations of reality, considering the quantum reality is completely different than our perceived reality. With such boggy ground to stand on. Free will or not is an opinion that some believe strongly. To me the answer cannot be known.

Free will has nothing to do with quantum reality (at least not more as it has to do with lifeless, purposeless entities). And I think the answer can be known, even when one always can say 'depends on what you mean with free will'. But I think philosophy has already provided the answer, by showing what kind of free will we do have, and which we don't. I am also pretty sure that the kind of free will we do have (compatibilist free will), is enough as a basis for our moral and legal praxis. 

11 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

I believe philosophy deals with the most fundamental issues while science deals with the issues that based on the fundamental issues. This means the laws that govern all science issues are based on the fundamental laws that govern the whole universe. The study of philosophy is to look into these fundamental laws. 

...

'Believing' what philosophy is has no place here. See the curriculum of some philosophy departments in philosophy, and you can get a notion of what philosophy is today. And in another way you already got a very good answer on reddit. TychoCelchuuu gave you there a list of philosophical topics that simply do not 'deal with the most fundamental issues'.

8 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

Thales, an ancient Greek philosopher who proposed " water compose the world" is considered the first scientist. 

Considered by whom? Not by me. Thales was the first to use a rational principle to show how he thought nature was buildup. For the rest he used Babylonian observation lists to predict a sun eclipse. That is a great feat, but I think one should consider him as a proto-scientist. 

9 hours ago, Rob McEachern said:

Although it is a bit of an over-simplification...

... it is a good overview. Thank you. 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

I can only add the observation that there were two Bacons dealing in Philosophy and Rob is referring to the second, as the contemporary of Galileo.

Roger Bacon 1214 - 1292

Francis Bacon 1561 - 1626

Yeah, funny isn't it? And both expressed the importance of observations as instrument to develop knowledge. 

On 29/12/2017 at 2:23 AM, a common mechanism said:

What is the difference between science and philosophy? 

Science tries to understand reality.

Philosophy reflects on our way of thinking about reality: it tries to find (hidden) assumptions behind our way of thinking, and remove ambiguities in the concepts we are using in our thinking. For more, see here.

1 hour ago, Dalo said:

As a philosopher I can assure you that it is the most absurd affirmation you could ever express. Feel free to ask specialists in the philosophy of Physics.

Ah! On which university did you study philosophy?

On 15.12.2017 at 2:41 PM, geordief said:

On another forum I wondered whether philosophy might be defined as the skill of turning one's intellectual (and emotional ,presumably ?) attention inwards in addition to the coping mechanism we all develop and which feeds on and organising the consequences of external stimuli  .

How do you think philosophy differs from other inner activities, like e.g meditation, gaining self-knowledge, doing mathematics?

On 02/12/2017 at 12:48 PM, fudgetusk said:

How did we get to NOW? Seems to me that if you figure in an infinite past then no event can ever happen because it can always be set back infinitely. Not my idea but the idea of a greek philosopher.

On 05/12/2017 at 1:34 PM, fudgetusk said:

It wasn't Zeno. His name began with A. he showed there were only two options of where the universe came from and both were illogical.

I assume it was Immanuel Kant, so not a Greek philosopher, and doesn't begin with an 'A', but at least has an 'A' in it.

See here (huge pdf), pages 470 (483 in the pdf) and 471:

Quote

Thesis: The world has a beginning in time, and in space it is also enclosed in boundaries.

Proof: For if one assumes that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given point in time an eternity has elapsed, and hence an infinite series of states of things in the world, each following another, has passed away. But now the infinity of a series consists precisely in the fact that it can never be completed through a successive synthesis. Therefore an infinitely elapsed world-series is impossible, so a beginning of the world is a necessary condition of its existence; which was the first point to be proved.

Antithesis: The world has no beginning and no bounds in space, but is infinite with regard to both time and space.

Proof: For suppose that it has a beginning. Since the beginning is an existence preceded by a time in which the thing is not, there must be a preceding time in which the world was not, i.e., an empty time. But now no arising of any sort of thing is possible in an empty time, because no part of such a time has, in itself, prior to another part, any distinguishing condition of its existence rather than its non-existence (whether one assumes that it comes to be of itself or through another cause). Thus many series of things may begin in the world, but the world itself cannot have any beginning, and so in past time it is infinite.