Jump to content

PeterJ

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    988
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About PeterJ

  • Rank
    Protist

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  1. Great post, Sorcerer. You might like Spencer Brown's 'Laws of Form', in which he presents an ontology based on the same idea as Kant. Brown likens the original phenomenon to a blank piece of paper. Kant calls it 'not an instance of a category'. I think you are on exactly the right track. The empty set is a muddled idea imho, but very close to a good one. Kant's idea of a phenomenon that is beyond the categories of thought seems a better one, since it is the basis of the perennial philosophy.
  2. Amazing. Oh well. I should know better by now on this forum. I know teenagers who have a better grasp of philosophy than these contemptuous comments reveal, and who certainly have more interest. I'll leave you in peace to wander around the issues forever. Don't say I didn't try.
  3. I feel that this represents a real bit of progress towards mutual understanding. Yes, you could say 'all philosophy is undecidable', although it would be a messy way of saying it. But undecidable is not the same thing as unsolvable! What I'm trying to explain, by request, is that while everybody finds that metaphysical questions are undecidable, for nondualism they would be undecidable for a reason. Their undecidability would be explained by saying that the extreme views on which they are founded are wrong. This approach is not possible for a western academic philosopher unless they aband
  4. Hi Strange - ---"Can you provide a reference to where I should "go and look"? I have never heard of this "well-known philosophical fact", except from you. Is there a wikiepdia p;age on it? Or something on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?" Yes, the Stanford Enc. would be a good place to start. Just read some entries on metaphysics. The information is everywhere. Try Kant. He puts this fact as 'All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable'. Bradley puts it as 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result'. But really we only have to stand back
  5. 'East' and 'West' are commonly used to describe two different traditions of thought. Have you not come across this distinction before? It is very common. It is also very misleading, but it is often a useful.shorthand for two different approaches. In the West we reject the solution of philosophy that is most common in the East. Heidegger blames Plato for this, dating the loss of the idea of unity in our philosophy to his Academy. But whoever we blame these are two quite different approaches to philosophy. The difference would be that eastern thought encompasses the notion of nonduality
  6. Oh boy. Here we go again. ---"The statement "all X are false" is hardly neutral. It is a pretty positive statement of your belief." In this case it must be obvious that you are misinterpreting it. It is not a statement of belief, it is a statement of a well-known philosophical fact. Do you really not know that it is the case? If not, then I can understand your scepticism. But just go have a look, it's not a secret. ---"Aaaand ... here we go again. We can start the countdown to when you stop posting and blame us for not knowing the answers." Of course I blame you. It is poor sch
  7. The statement is not endorsing a positive position but a neutral one. So, no, this statement is not included. The usefulness of the theory is not the issue. It will be useful if we use it. It is useful to me, far more so than any physical theory, but only because I'm interested in more than just science.,It would be useful in theoretical physics and biology, I believe, but it is is barely known in these disciplines. Scientists tend to respect their academic colleagues in the philosophy faculty, and they seem uninterested in solving problems. I would support the philosophobia expressed by
  8. This particular issue is not to do with science. I'm talking about metaphysics. I wonder why you assume I'm bashing science. Why would I do that? I only ever bash scientists who venture outside their field and start making metaphysical pronouncements. By 'true or not' I meant that it would not matter whether we believe it is true or not. it works as a solution for metaphysics. Obviously I did not mean that we cannot establish whether it works. There is a lot of information of this topic freely available. If you want to look into these ideas then google is your friend. The usefuln
  9. I think it would be best to read Wiki, or I could recommend various books or even my blog. I certainly would not attempt to explain it from scratch. But here's a few notes. Nondualism states that all positive metaphysical positions are false. This would explain why all such positions are logically absurd and thus why metaphysical problems are undecidable. These problems would be (false) dilemmas created by opposing two positive theories, (e,g the universe begins/does not begin), where neither answer works. To do this is to abuse Aristotle's logic. There is nothing at all contentiou
  10. I'm sorry a couple of you guys think that I dodge questions. I don't usually, although sometimes I may feel it isn't worth the effort. I've come across a more sympathetic audiences for ideas the smack of religion. . I've given an answer here as requested, albeit so far it's been ignored. The science-religion discussion is going to be rather shallow if it ignores the philosophical scheme of mysticism and the analytical results of metaphysics. It will end up being an argument about God's existence and the value of Protestantism and go nowhere. It is possible, even probable, that the sce
  11. Did you ask? Funny,. I haven't posted here for ages. One solution would be nondualism, which denies that anything truly real came into existence in the first place, including time and space. There's more to it, of course. Schrodinger was a fan.
  12. ---" If we carry on we'll end up at the "first cause" paradigm which as we know is a paradox of logic. So maybe end here?" This is where physics ends and metaphysics starts. Metaphysics exists precisely because science cannot explain everything. No need to bring religion into it unless we feel like it. The 'first cause' certainly looks like a paradox, but it can be resolved. Not by science, however, for this is a matter of logic and first principles. Science must wait for the university philosophers to get their act together. I wouldn't suggest holding your breath.
  13. Yes. I may well have made that mistake. If so pardon me. I should have said 'legitimate' or somesuch. A contradiction would be a pair of assertions meeting Aristotle's rule for contradictory pairs, while a 'true' contradiction would be an assertion that is both true and false simultaneously. Interesting that you brought up dialethism. Usually my argument is used to oppose dialethism and I believe it is successful, but since physicists sometimes see true contradictions in QM the same argument arises. I see it a crucial topic with very important implications for philosophy and physi
  14. I have no comment to make about eigenstates, but I'm hoping that uncool is correct about this. Andrew. - I feel that dialethism is nonsense. I have been arguiing against Priest, Routley and Melhuish for years. My argument is that they are making exactly the same mistake that scientists often make in in relation to QM and that I am discussing here. So I'd agree that diaethism is directly relevant, but feel that you haven't quite grokked my point about logic yet. Dialethism claims true contradictions. I deny them.
  15. Drat. I wish religion was not always lazily elided with theism. I usually agree with the mods at every turn, but in this case I wonder why we are not allowed to propose that consciousness cannot be explained by science in a thread that asks whether science can explain everything.
×
×
  • 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.