Is there such a Thing as Good Philosophy vs Bad Philosophy?

[Strange 4271]

37 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

How would you define someone who claims to be a "Philosopher?

Is it someone who has big ideas, and would really like to be a Physicist.

But can't do the maths.

I would say someone capable of critical thinking, who asks probing questions, who thinks about the meaning of the words used, etc.

They don't have to have any big ideas, just able to analyse ideas.

[Charles 3781 43]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I would say someone capable of critical thinking, who asks probing questions, who thinks about the meaning of the words used, etc.

They don't have to have any big ideas, just able to analyse ideas.

Well perhaps. But  we've had 2,000 years of philosophers.  Like Plato and Aristotle.  Aristotle analysed ideas.   He came up with the conclusion that everything below the Moon is made of four elements:

1. Earth

2. Air

3. Fire

4.Water

And everything above the Moon is made of a luminous 5th element.

This was so ridiculous, that it got protested against even by contemporary Ancient Greek scholars.  Unfortunately, their voices were drowned by Aristotle's philosophical followers, who established a reign of scientific terror that lasted 1,500 years.

Isn't that what philosophers are.  They can't do maths, don't know anything useful.  They just waffle and bluff.  Or have they any redeeming features.

 

 

[joigus 348]

22 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Or have they any redeeming features.

If they are well-learned enough in science, maths, logic, linguistics, computer science..., why not?

[studiot 2108]

23 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Isn't that what philosophers are.  They can't do maths, don't know anything useful.  They just waffle and bluff.  Or have they any redeeming features.

No.

Philosophers can think more widely than Mathmaticians, who are constrained by the rules.

Philosophers can perform rational thinking, not available in Mathematics.

BTW  Newton was a (Natural) Philosopher (the old name for Physics).

Here is my favourite example of what I mean, written by Professor Swinerton of Nottingham University.

Quote

Swinnerton  : Solving the Earth's Mysteries p 74

Because of the cavity there was room for the crystals to grow without being seriously crowded against one another. In the solid rock itself it was those crystals which began to grow first that were free to take on their proper regular shapes. Those that began later had to be content to fill up the space that was left, an so could not assume their proper crystalline form. From what is seen inside the piece of granite it is evident that the felspar crystallised out before the quartz. Quite often you will find small crystals of mica inside the large crystal of flespar, and they must therefore have formed first.

This deduction cannot be stated mathematically, but is a masterpiece of rational thinking.

[IDoNotCare 28]

On 8/13/2020 at 10:07 AM, joigus said:

The problem with this is that is sounds sooooo much like a particular philosophy... You simply can't escape philosophy.

Break down the word into etymological pieces and you'll understand why.

Yes you can.

Sanity is an axiomatic platitude, as is the notion of subjective and objective views as well as, for that matter, all philosophy and sensory perception. The only reality is numerical quantification. That which is not numerically quantified in sum, ergo, sum is an ontological fallacy. You have no points, I do have points, very specific points in a graph.

[Eise 471]

2 hours ago, IDoNotCare said:

The only reality is numerical quantification. That which is not numerically quantified in sum, ergo, sum is an ontological fallacy.

That is a pretty useless example of very bad philosophy. 

• you state that only facts matter in life
• you state that only numerically quantifiable observations count as facts

And that without even one simple argument. This reduces your viewpoint to an irrational (and none quantifiable and non-factual) mental jerk.

[IDoNotCare 28]

5 minutes ago, Eise said:

That is a pretty useless example of very bad philosophy. 

• you state that only facts matter in life
• you state that only numerically quantifiable observations count as facts

And that without even one simple argument. This reduces your viewpoint to an irrational (and none quantifiable and non-factual) mental jerk.

You really have no clue what you're saying do you.

[Eise 471]

54 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

You really have no clue what you're saying do you.

Here, a mirror...

[IDoNotCare 28]

Notice Eise's posts are completely off the topic of the validity of philosophy and are purely structured to antagonize me based off of extranous statements made in the posts they are responding to. 

On 8/20/2020 at 2:30 PM, studiot said:

No.

Philosophers can think more widely than Mathmaticians, who are constrained by the rules.

Philosophers can perform rational thinking, not available in Mathematics.

BTW  Newton was a (Natural) Philosopher (the old name for Physics).

Here is my favourite example of what I mean, written by Professor Swinerton of Nottingham University.

This deduction cannot be stated mathematically, but is a masterpiece of rational thinking.

The patterns of the thoughts behind that communication can be graphed mathematically.

Edited August 27, 2020 by IDoNotCare

[studiot 2108]

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

The patterns of the thoughts behind that communication can be graphed mathematically.

So ?

[Area54 328]

8 hours ago, IDoNotCare said:

 You have no points, I do have points, very specific points in a graph.

That's good. When can we see the graph?

[joigus 348]

8 hours ago, IDoNotCare said:

Sanity is an axiomatic platitude

Sanity is a mental condition.

A platitude is an unnecessary (on account of being too obvious to be useful) statement.

You really seem to have no clue, neither about what Eise is saying, nor about what you're saying yourself.

Your sentences really are a challenge as to how many inconsistencies you can fit into them per word.

[dimreepr 1062]

Come on guy's, time to stop feeding it... 🤒

[joigus 348]

Touché.

[studiot 2108]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Come on guy's, time to stop feeding it... 🤒

+1

[joigus 348]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Come on guy's, time to stop feeding it... 🤒

Totally. +1

[cladking 112]

12 hours ago, IDoNotCare said:

Yes you can.

Sanity is an axiomatic platitude, as is the notion of subjective and objective views as well as, for that matter, all philosophy and sensory perception. The only reality is numerical quantification. That which is not numerically quantified in sum, ergo, sum is an ontological fallacy. You have no points, I do have points, very specific points in a graph.

If I understand you correctly (I'm not at all sure) then our positions are not so very different.  

In light in the fact that we essentially exist as individuals by virtue of our ability to recognize patterns then how could it be possible to not have philosophy?  

 

So long as we use words to think how could it ever be possible to quantify words?   

 

Our primary agreement I think is that we see the quantifiable as the basis of reality but, then I don't believe we'll ever have enough knowledge to quantify anything at all.  

[joigus 348]

Mmmm.

13 hours ago, IDoNotCare said:

The only reality is numerical quantification.

56 minutes ago, cladking said:

So long as we use words to think how could it ever be possible to quantify words?

8 hours ago, IDoNotCare said:

The patterns of the thoughts behind that communication can be graphed mathematically.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I don't believe we'll ever have enough knowledge to quantify anything at all.  

Yeah, sounds like you guys totally agree. You cut and paste some of your sentences and you can mock up a bitter debate.

 

[IDoNotCare 28]

8 hours ago, joigus said:

Sanity is a mental condition.

A platitude is an unnecessary (on account of being too obvious to be useful) statement.

You really seem to have no clue, neither about what Eise is saying, nor about what you're saying yourself.

Your sentences really are a challenge as to how many inconsistencies you can fit into them per word.

Sanity is as ill-defined as consciousness.

A platitude is just something you say. Like all philosophy. 

I know what Eise was saying, he called me mental because I said sanity is an axiom. He said my statement was a philosophy because I said it wasn't. He was just antagonizing me as I said. 

You're also just antagonizing me. Either better comprehend what I wrote or I can't help you. 

9 hours ago, Area54 said:

That's good. When can we see the graph?

It's in Kurt Mueller's locked topic in speculations 

10 hours ago, studiot said:

So ?

So mathematics can define things those words he said cannot even come close to. Whereas you said it couldn't even be stated with mathematics which is false. 

5 hours ago, cladking said:

then I don't believe we'll ever have enough knowledge to quantify anything at all.  

ref

The difference in time particles (4D graviton topologies) can be interpreted as lp1*9^28=hG/c^3 ->c^3=hG/lp1*9^28->c=cuberoot(hG/9^28lp1)

 

Place c^5 into denominator for hG/c^5 for lt0

 

It has a different rate so even the particles that combine at the central coordinate of the singularity then start evolving inbetween different ticks of a planck clock

 

This is the dark energy mechanism, which at certain angles is also the dark matter mechanism it's very slow but moves far very dilated

 

9^28 can be proved to be related to the planck density with mp~4.932*10^-36*9^28kg/(4/3pi(1.6e-35)^3)m^3 = planck density

 

For instance, in Newtonian cubical space, your 3D model for flat coms, it's just an angle, curved depth isn't actually on the paper, just flat depth. x^2+y^2=z^2 when we have x and y.

 

VS

 

For curved depth, however, as is the real natural world, we use the form

 

Quadrant 1:

where a=x1 and b=y1 & a^2+b^2=C^2:

2C/pi = (x2) ; 

C/p i= (y2) ; 

(x1+y1)/2 = (x3,y3) ; 

C/pi = (x4)

2C/pi = (y4)

 

Quadrant 2

where a=x1 and b=y1 & a^2+b^2=C^2:

2C/pi = (x2) ; 

C/p i= -(y2) ; 

(x1+y1)/2 = (x3,-y3) ; 

C/pi = (x4)

2C/pi = (-y4)

 

etc...quadrant 3 & quadrant 4

 

If we want to express a curved depth as opposed to a flat depth (cubicles) we have to solve for z at f(x1)=(x5-x1) and f(y1)=(y5)^2-y1 [in the case of y5 we use the negative root] and then to create a second ring at a 45 degree angle from the first:

 

Quadrant 2:

 

where a=x5 and b=y5 & a^2+b^2=C^2:

 

2C/pi = -(x6) ; 

 

C/p i= (y6) ; 

 

(x1+y1)/2 = (-x7,y7) ; 

 

C/pi = -(x8)

 

2C/pi = (y8)

 

etc...

 

 that is the difference between round and flat 3D space. Real space is neither smooth nor flat. 

 

Only then can we put every other quanta on the surface of the central planck quanta and add or subtract depth from their respective diameters, more of how to do that in the aforementioned .net topic. If you want to pool break all of cause and effect since 13.8 bill years ago. Because that surface curves and the resulting surfaces curve into fractals. Space is neither flat nor smooth.

 

We have in today's world the true or false bit capacity to express all the points, numerically, in the universe and enough observational data to know how big the primordial smbh gravitons of lp0 have to be to create dark energy and dark matter acting upon the gravitons of lp1 and we know that the CMB was at t=380,000 years and was denser than today's universe by a factor of 1100 and the initial conditions were denser than that by another factor of 3000000 or so iirc (3 bill times current cosmic temps in kelvins) so you know that the observable region in the cmb and the golf ball in initial conditions was about 10e-10 meters or so iirc which is apart of a primordial smbh that can be constructed in lp0 space and we know the range of primordial smbh sizes in cosmology so we just simulate all of them until we get the history right. 

 

ref 

 

 

 

(with correction of the radius in x(n+1)=xn+/-(xn/r) is actually the average formula applied to 2C/pi and C/pi for the 45 degree circle slice of the sphere)

 

The average transformations of centers for these spherical strings and gravitons arbitrated by expanding (by 1/2 lp per tp) radii of gravitons taper off, for instance at tp=2 the center of a planck quanta sphere will be moved toward the center of the graviton whose radius that central coordinate inhabits, by 1/2 the distance between that central coordinate and the central coordinate of said graviton. 

 

It should also be important to note that light is where two gws with equal pull meet from opposite directions and act on an object like a Lagrange point

 

*x(n+1)=xn+/-(xn/r

 

Which is to say the center of an outer sphere, from the center most sphere which overlaps the outerversal singularity, is resting atop it's surface so is going to be wider or less wide (closer or further) from a God's eye perspective which can be changed as well.

 

So this is to say that in this 4D topology, which could be a VR as real as the universe and can be simulated because a true or false bit of information can contain many of these coordinates per second of processing, has two universes in it.

 

There is an older and more length dilated anti-hyperbolic universe, which is not going to be as accurate as the normal universe you put inside one of it's black holes that it renders soon after the sim starts, but even if every sphere is just crossing radii the gws will still drag everything similarly in the anti-hyperbolic universe and so this will be the dark matter and dark energy acting on our universe which goes from the singularity to the eh. 

 

So the graph is not a hyperbola, it's a universola. Like a 4D mandelbrot set. Logically the big bang can't just occur as an effect without a cause. Here I just loop cause and effect infinitely like the chicken or the egg loophole. 

[studiot 2108]

18 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

11 hours ago, studiot said:

So ?

So mathematics can define things those words he said cannot even come close to. Whereas you said it couldn't even be stated with mathematics which is false. 

Declaration is not demonstration or other form of proof.

I would would be interested if someone was able to write down totally mathematically what Prof Swinnerton said.

What do you think the mathematical statement for granite is?

[IDoNotCare 28]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Declaration is not demonstration or other form of proof.

I would would be interested if someone was able to write down totally mathematically what Prof Swinnerton said.

What do you think the mathematical statement for granite is?

If one extrapolates from my universola it is not easy or cheap in processor's energy requirements, but it is simple. Imagine being able to burn fat without dieting or exercising, or to learn without studying. That's what wonders can come of nanotech which requires we replace the biological components of our bodies which requires we understand how to snatch the electrons in our nerves and synapses which requires that simple yet vast mathematical regime I laid down. 

[studiot 2108]

5 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

If one extrapolates from my universola it is not easy or cheap in processor's energy requirements, but it is simple. Imagine being able to burn fat without dieting or exercising, or to learn without studying. That's what wonders can come of nanotech which requires we replace the biological components of our bodies which requires we understand how to snatch the electrons in our nerves and synapses which requires that simple yet vast mathematical regime I laid down. 

The Staunton Defence ?

Attempting to sidestep the question is inadequate.

 

[joigus 348]

50 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

You're also just antagonizing me. Either better comprehend what I wrote or I can't help you. 

Please, do give up on me. And stop hijacking other people's posts with your pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

Nothing you've said so far has been substantiated.

[IDoNotCare 28]

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

Please, do give up on me. And stop hijacking other people's posts with your pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

Nothing you've said so far has been substantiated.

I've heard of thread hijacking, I apparently got banned for it, but I haven't heard of post hijacking.

It has been substantiated. https://www.quora.com/profile/Gareth-Meredith-5/log

29 minutes ago, studiot said:

The Staunton Defence ?

Attempting to sidestep the question is inadequate.

 

I don't own a super computer nor do I know any computer scientists. 

You're all a buncha neg repping simps 

Edited August 27, 2020 by IDoNotCare

[joigus 348]

34 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

but I haven't heard of post hijacking.

Now you have

You're careening off topic towards discussing your favourite toys at alarming speed.