Jump to content

The Physicist and the Philsopher:


beecee
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Exactly.

So why do the Philosophers get it so much more in the neck that the Physicists ?

Do they? Science in general also seem to cop plenty, but at least imo, don't take it to heart as much as philsophers. I mean Krauss literally had then gnawing and biting at his heels non stop after his criticism. Like I said earlier, philosophy is the foundation of science, and indispensable in many ways. But gee, sometimes the absurdities are well laughable...imo anyway, and while certainly a defining aspect as to a word or sentence is paramount to reach an opinion, and/or conclusion, sometimes those definings are as Feynman put it, absurd. I believe I can speak from some experience, as some of those absurdities have been put to me on more then one occasion over a few threads by one or two, imo, poor philsophers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Already clarified.

Your coin analogy is just that, an analogy, and most understand the limitations of most analogies. And no one has said they dislike philsophy, afterall it is the foundation stone of science. It seems your own often expressed bias and usual cherry picking as exposed by others,  has blinkered you to their interpretation regarding philosophy. Or read Krauss'book.

The logical fallacy re an appeal to authority, is relevant when for example, asking a butcher his opinion of brain surgery. Otherwise of course we all appeal to authority at sometime or other, you, me and the bloke next door. Yes, I'm reasonably sure it is attributed to Berty. I havn't the time or the inclination to investigate any further.

Good for you! I joined because I love science, and have learnt more and more regarding many areas of science I was ignorant about, from my peers. I was enthusiastic certainly not arrogant. I also learnt that in essence philosophy while being the foundation stone of science, does have limitations, faults  and riddled with absurdities as expressed by Dicky Feynman. “We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: you don’t know what you are talking about! The second one says: what do you mean by ‘talking’? What do you mean by ‘you’? What do you mean by ‘know’?” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, 1963).

Which is why we all need to appeal to authority at one time or another.

To expand...an appeal to the "proper" authorities, while not proof, is evidence to support a particular case. It can be substantial evidence that puts a particular case beyond reasonable doubt. eg: Evidence for evolution, (so much so, that it is now considered fact) evidence for BH's...evidence for water on Mars.

Yet again!!! you've failed to directly address a single point I've made, if and when you do (and I hope you do) we can have a decent conversation; until then I won't be replying to you...

Aesop.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yet again!!! you've failed to directly address a single point I've made, if and when you do (and I hope you do) we can have a decent conversation; until then I won't be replying to you...

*shrug*  🥱 

Like I said, already clarified. What you do from here on in is your concern.

I'll certainly though keep pointing out what I believe to be the shortcomings in your claims and philosophy when needed and appropriate.

Have a great day! 

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Aesop.jpg

Quotes about Truth and media (34 quotes)

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beecee said:

I'll certainly though keep pointing out what I believe to be the shortcomings in your claims and philosophy when needed and appropriate.

I certainly hope you do, just with reasoned arguments, rather than your usual handwaving insistence that you're right, because you say so.

On 5/18/2022 at 4:19 PM, studiot said:

Hands up those who think either Philosophy or Physics was the same as it was 50 years ago?; 100 years ago? ; 200 years ago? ; 500years ago ?

Not the same in a literal sense, but the same in the way they think about our contemporary surroundings and knowledge there of; the question's haven't changed, only the day the answers are given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

Not the same in a literal sense, but the same in the way they think about our contemporary surroundings and knowledge there of; the question's haven't changed, only the day the answers are given.

Well the language of that reply is certainly steeped in the past to the extent I'm not sure what all of it means.

However I disagree completely that the questions have not changed.

50 years ago someone might just have started asking questions of swansont about lasers. But no further back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I certainly hope you do, just with reasoned arguments, rather than your usual handwaving insistence that you're right, because you say so.

You mean like your usual philsophical utterences? Or like this?

Aesop.jpg

I'm really trying not to laugh at your hypocrisy!

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Well the language of that reply is certainly steeped in the past to the extent I'm not sure what all of it means.

However I disagree completely that the questions have not changed.

50 years ago someone might just have started asking questions of swansont about lasers. But no further back.

 

I suspect we're talking past each other, I'm not saying the question's are literally the same, I'm saying they think about the answer's in exactly the same way.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

You mean like your usual philsophical utterences? Or like this?

Aesop.jpg

I'm really trying not to laugh at your hypocrisy!

It's a good job I took @MigL advice, and invested in a quality 'irony meter'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, beecee, I hope you are doing well in your followup crusade against philosophy. 

I find it interesting that you, Krauss, Degrasse Tyson are heavily critisising philosophy, where it is clear to me that you and your scientific heroes have no idea what is actually done in modern academic philosophy. Don't understand me wrong: I have read several books of Krauss, and these are great in explaining modern physics and astronomy for the lay people; and I extremely like the Degrasse Tyson's work in the public understanding of science. However I also recognise without a shadow of doubt that they are fighting a straw man here: philosophy as it was thousands years ago, or hundred years ago. Should I condemn physics as stupid because Aristotle said that F = mv? 2500 years ago? Or astronomers that thought the cosmos is static and exist just out of the stars we see in the Milky Way, not much more than 100 years ago? Of course not, but that is exactly what you are doing when they, and you, are critisising philosophy: as if philosophy has not progressed in those thousands or most recent 100 years (Russel, anybody?).

If you say that philosophy has still no answers to the most fundamental questions it asks since thousands of years, then I can only react that physics and astronomy have not either. True, we know much more, and cosmologists can describe the history of the universe until about 10⁻²³ seconds, but the original question 'where everything comes from' is not answered. Even Krauss does not know the answer. So if you would say, e.g., that philosophy still has not answered the thousands of years old question if we have free will, I would say 'maybe not, but we understand the problem much better'. The same as in cosmology: we understand much more about the origins of the universe, but we do not have the definitive answer. You are using different critera for the progress of science and philosophy. In trying to understand and accept the present scientific difficulties in answering this question, one is, eh... philosophising.

Thereby: every science has its philosophical assumptions. See my present disclaimer ('There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.') Grappling with these assumptions is philosophy (at least of one of its subdisciplines). Doing unfounded assertions about philosophy is just bad philosophy. (Yes, when a scientist reflects about the status of his science, he is doing philosophy, not science.) Feynman shows a nice example of the ambiguity of scientists about philosophy: on one side, he finds it completely useless ("What is 'talking'"), on the other side you have his reaction on the question of what magnetism 'really' is (I think even you have shared the youtube of that interview here in these fora); there he is clearly taken a well argued philosophical stance, i.e. he is philosophising. 

Recently I have been reading What is real? The unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics by Adam Becker (Astrophysicist and philosopher). Its historical description shows clearly how heavily influenced the discussions between the 'quantum pioneers' by philosophical stances, and when it is about quantum fundamentals, it still is. With that it also shows clearly how important history of science and philosophy of science are, even for physicists. E.g. it shows how devastating the 'Copenhagen creed' was for an open discussion on the fundamentals of quantum physics, even so much, that you could forget your career, if you showed interest in fundamental questions (e.g. John Bell, working at CERN, helping in calculations for its accellerator/collider, but 'doing work on fundamentals on Sundays' Bell's theorem belongs to this 'Sunday's work'; he even warned Alain Aspect not to strive for doing entanglement experiments, unless he was tenured, (which he luckily was)). Read this book, maybe you get a bit more respect for philosophy and history of science. You will also see that the author himself is not the only one that has both studied physics and philosophy (often in that chronological order). All less talented than Krauss? In cosmology, sure. In philosophy? Definitely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is so special about comparing and contrasting physics and philosophy? Why not e.g. physics and music? Physics and sport? Or, music and sport? Aren't they all different human activities, and different humans like, dislike, or are indifferent about some or others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Genady said:

What is so special about comparing and contrasting physics and philosophy?

Nothing, literally...

 

rational.jpg

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Well, beecee, I hope you are doing well in your followup crusade against philosophy. 

I find it interesting that you, Krauss, Degrasse Tyson are heavily critisising philosophy, where it is clear to me that you and your scientific heroes have no idea what is actually done in modern academic philosophy. Don't understand me wrong: I have read several books of Krauss, and these are great in explaining modern physics and astronomy for the lay people; and I extremely like the Degrasse Tyson's work in the public understanding of science. However I also recognise without a shadow of doubt that they are fighting a straw man here: philosophy as it was thousands years ago, or hundred years ago. Should I condemn physics as stupid because Aristotle said that F = mv? 2500 years ago? Or astronomers that thought the cosmos is static and exist just out of the stars we see in the Milky Way, not much more than 100 years ago? Of course not, but that is exactly what you are doing when they, and you, are critisising philosophy: as if philosophy has not progressed in those thousands or most recent 100 years (Russel, anybody?).

If you say that philosophy has still no answers to the most fundamental questions it asks since thousands of years, then I can only react that physics and astronomy have not either. True, we know much more, and cosmologists can describe the history of the universe until about 10⁻²³ seconds, but the original question 'where everything comes from' is not answered. Even Krauss does not know the answer. So if you would say, e.g., that philosophy still has not answered the thousands of years old question if we have free will, I would say 'maybe not, but we understand the problem much better'. The same as in cosmology: we understand much more about the origins of the universe, but we do not have the definitive answer. You are using different critera for the progress of science and philosophy. In trying to understand and accept the present scientific difficulties in answering this question, one is, eh... philosophising.

Thereby: every science has its philosophical assumptions. See my present disclaimer ('There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.') Grappling with these assumptions is philosophy (at least of one of its subdisciplines). Doing unfounded assertions about philosophy is just bad philosophy. (Yes, when a scientist reflects about the status of his science, he is doing philosophy, not science.) Feynman shows a nice example of the ambiguity of scientists about philosophy: on one side, he finds it completely useless ("What is 'talking'"), on the other side you have his reaction on the question of what magnetism 'really' is (I think even you have shared the youtube of that interview here in these fora); there he is clearly taken a well argued philosophical stance, i.e. he is philosophising. 

Recently I have been reading What is real? The unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics by Adam Becker (Astrophysicist and philosopher). Its historical description shows clearly how heavily influenced the discussions between the 'quantum pioneers' by philosophical stances, and when it is about quantum fundamentals, it still is. With that it also shows clearly how important history of science and philosophy of science are, even for physicists. E.g. it shows how devastating the 'Copenhagen creed' was for an open discussion on the fundamentals of quantum physics, even so much, that you could forget your career, if you showed interest in fundamental questions (e.g. John Bell, working at CERN, helping in calculations for its accellerator/collider, but 'doing work on fundamentals on Sundays' Bell's theorem belongs to this 'Sunday's work'; he even warned Alain Aspect not to strive for doing entanglement experiments, unless he was tenured, (which he luckily was)). Read this book, maybe you get a bit more respect for philosophy and history of science. You will also see that the author himself is not the only one that has both studied physics and philosophy (often in that chronological order). All less talented than Krauss? In cosmology, sure. In philosophy? Definitely not.

Thanks +1 another lesson learned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Should I condemn physics as stupid because Aristotle said that F = mv? 2500 years ago? Or astronomers that thought the cosmos is static and exist just out of the stars we see in the Milky Way, not much more than 100 years ago? Of course not, but that is exactly what you are doing when they, and you, are critisising philosophy: as if philosophy has not progressed in those thousands or most recent 100 years (Russel, anybody?).

You can certainly critique Aristotle (and those who followed) for not testing his hypothesis. Not sure about the astronomers, since they were limited by what they could test, and things changed pretty rapidly once that happened.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

If you say that philosophy has still no answers to the most fundamental questions it asks since thousands of years, then I can only react that physics and astronomy have not either. True, we know much more, and cosmologists can describe the history of the universe until about 10⁻²³ seconds, but the original question 'where everything comes from' is not answered.  

Is that the original question for science? Or was science separated because it was answering a different question: how does nature behave? Because then you have to say that covering all but a tiny fraction of a second means we have a plethora of answers.

 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

 

Recently I have been reading What is real? The unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics by Adam Becker (Astrophysicist and philosopher). Its historical description shows clearly how heavily influenced the discussions between the 'quantum pioneers' by philosophical stances, and when it is about quantum fundamentals, it still is. With that it also shows clearly how important history of science and philosophy of science are, even for physicists. E.g. it shows how devastating the 'Copenhagen creed' was for an open discussion on the fundamentals of quantum physics, even so much, that you could forget your career, if you showed interest in fundamental questions (e.g. John Bell, working at CERN, helping in calculations for its accellerator/collider, but 'doing work on fundamentals on Sundays' Bell's theorem belongs to this 'Sunday's work'; he even warned Alain Aspect not to strive for doing entanglement experiments, unless he was tenured, (which he luckily was)). Read this book, maybe you get a bit more respect for philosophy and history of science. You will also see that the author himself is not the only one that has both studied physics and philosophy (often in that chronological order). All less talented than Krauss? In cosmology, sure. In philosophy? Definitely not.

Part of this needs to acknowledge that “fundamentals of QM” represents a tiny sliver of physics but generates a disproportionate amount of discussion. i.e. this do not represent what a vast proportion of physicists do, or care about

1 hour ago, Genady said:

What is so special about comparing and contrasting physics and philosophy? Why not e.g. physics and music? Physics and sport? Or, music and sport? Aren't they all different human activities, and different humans like, dislike, or are indifferent about some or others?

Not a lot of people claim that physicists need to spend more time listening to what athletes or musicians have to say in order to do physics, or examples of physicists weighing in on how the athletes/musicians do what they do (as far as I am aware)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Not a lot of people claim that physicists need to spend more time listening to what athletes or musicians have to say in order to do physics, or examples of physicists weighing in on how the athletes/musicians do what they do (as far as I am aware)

Yes, but what are the causes of this phenomenon? Is it historical? I understand frictions between physics / biology and religion, they do overlap in some areas. But physics and philosophy don't overlap, or do they?

Edited by Genady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, but what are the causes of this phenomenon? Is it historical? I understand frictions between physics / biology and religion, they do overlap in some areas. But physics and philosophy don't overlap, or do they?

Both studies are potentially  all pervasive. Given  enough time ,in my suspicion philosophical questions will usurp scientific questions and alternately as time continues scientific question will usurp philosophical questions ,like a dynamic entwined double spiral staircase .

 

Both areas of research cannot be limited to any demarcated region of human understanding  and so  they run shoulders and don't always get on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Both studies are potentially  all pervasive. Given  enough time ,in my suspicion philosophical questions will usurp scientific questions and alternately as time continues scientific question will usurp philosophical questions ,like a dynamic entwined double spiral staircase .

 

Both areas of research cannot be limited to any demarcated region of human understanding  and so  they run shoulders and don't always get on.

What are the examples of them not getting on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Genady said:

What are the examples of them not getting on?

How about the debate over first  legalizing and then ,later normalizing  homosexuality?

 

I recall those advocating for treating homosexuals equally  under the law making  frequent reference to scientific studies which ,they claimed  showed that  homosexuality was  not a choice but something people were born with.

I didn't follow this area of debate  personally  as I felt there were other arguments one way or another  but I can well believe that  there were those who would have argued  against those scientific findings as a way of maintaining their"philosophical"  stance that  homosexuality was a priori  wrong/unnatural (and likewise those on the other side advocating for liberalisation  might have argued against different  scientific studies that they did not like(science can surely be abused and is not always benignly neutral)

 

I anticipate that, over the coming decades there may be further scientific  studies  that will come out that either side of the debate will highlight to the benefit of their preferred   understanding  of the situation and application (or not) of social policies

 

So I don't see any end game  and I don't expect "science" or "philosophical interpretation " to ever have the final answer. 

 

Edit:I should  have written "rub shoulders" and not "run shoulders" in the previous post

Re-edit: perhaps I have strayed into scientist vs philosopher  rather than physicist vs philosopher?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, geordief said:

How about the debate over first  legalizing and then ,later normalizing  homosexuality?

These were arguments by philosophers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where Geordie is going.  Perhaps one could look at conflicts of applying scientific knowledge and bioethics, a branch of modern philosophy.  Science is neutral on the matter of cloning a person.  An ethicist can zoom back a bit and try to see if doing so might have unintended consequences, and draw upon other science fields than genetics, to consider the social and psychological effects of cloning.  The biotech person might have a "let's do it because we can," and chafe at the philosopher weighing in.  

BTW, I also would recommend Adam Becker's, What is Real? as @Eise did.  Gives a clear look at how a philosophical position can constrict an area of research.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, swansont said:

These were arguments by philosophers?

I suppose professional or trained philosophers  contributed to the discussion.(probably quite extensively  although I have no recollection as such)

Not so sure the discussion was especially  divided along philosophical/scientific lines  but I think that was part of the debate.

 

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, geordief said:

I suppose professional or trained philosophers  contributed to the discussion.(probably quite extensively  although I have no recollection as such)

Not so sure the discussion was especially  divided along philosophical/scientific lines  but I think that was part of the debate.

 

I recall religious arguments, but not philosophical ones. From people with a certain worldview that requires that it be a choice. But that’s an emotional argument, not one based on reason, so definitely not philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Eise ( and some others who have passed through ), I know very little, if any, Philosophy, but I like to pretend I know some science, and I'm very appreciative of the insights Eise has shared with us.

The way I see it ( IOW, opinion, so I could be totally out to lunch ) both Philosophy and Physics try to answer fundamental questtions about the behaviour of nature.
Physics asks questions whose answers can be tested, while Philosophy asks questions with untestable answers.
At some point, before testing methodology is devised, or possible, for a Physics questiion, it is in effect, a Philosophy question.
All Physics started off as Philosophy, and while the realm of Physics seems to expands as we are able to test what used to be Philosophical questions, it seem that the Philosophical realm shrinks.
But not to worry, every question that has a testable answer gives rise to many more questions whose answer is yet untestable.

That would make Philosophy essential for Physicists as it gives them insight into developing testable answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, swansont said:

I recall religious arguments, but not philosophical ones. From people with a certain worldview that requires that it be a choice. But that’s an emotional argument, not one based on reason, so definitely not philosophy.

I am sure you are right.I am probably equally poorly qualified both as a scientist and as a philosopher (ie not at all)

My misapprehension  may be that I view almost any open minded questioning as "philosophical" and by science I understand the data that puts a brake on  freewheeling imaginative thought processes.

 

I don't recall the religious arguments  around legalizing homosexuality (in the UK) so much  but perhaps I may have simply paid little heed to them or maybe at that time religious arguments were (at least in my circle of friends) a subject for ridicule and so not advanced directly  but more under the cloak of conventional morality.

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

I don't recall the religious arguments  around legalizing homosexuality (in the UK)

In the US, things are probably more…rabid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Eise said:

Well, beecee, I hope you are doing well in your followup crusade against philosophy. 

Hi Eise...Yes I remember our past "crossing swords"effort re my supposed criticisng philosophy. If you read through my posts in this issue, my point was that much of what is covered by science today, was once the exclusive domain of philsophers, and perhaps in those circumstances, philsophy is superfluous at best. This was imo the main area of criticism by Krauss. I also offerred some criticism on the points another great scientist made, namely Richard Feynman, on the occasions that imo seem to delve into pedant and near stupidity.eg:  “We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: you don’t know what you are talking about! The second one says: what do you mean by ‘talking’? What do you mean by ‘you’? What do you mean by ‘know’?” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, 1963).

The opnion above is in my case re-enforced, particularly with 2 so called phislophical types on this forum, that I have crossed swords with a few times. Many times the same pedant as expressed by Feynman, is used rather then getting a direct answer, or completely and purposely avoiding an answer. 

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Should I condemn physics as stupid because Aristotle said that F = mv? 2500 years ago? Or astronomers that thought the cosmos is static and exist just out of the stars we see in the Milky Way, not much more than 100 years ago? Of course not, but that is exactly what you are doing when they, and you, are critisising philosophy: as if philosophy has not progressed in those thousands or most recent 100 years (Russel, anybody?).

Yes valid points that are all recognised by scientists, hence why scientific theories remain as scientific theories, simply gaining in certainty over time, and as they continually align with predictions. If they don't, the theories are modified, added to or just scrapped. That is science, and those scientific theories are generally accepted by the scientific community. Philosophers on the other hand seem to make their living, picking each other apart, never quite agreeing on any one particular philosophy. Highlighted by the following.....

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

If you say that philosophy has still no answers to the most fundamental questions it asks since thousands of years, then I can only react that physics and astronomy have not either.

I have said many times that philosophy is the foundation stone of science, as I'm sure Krauss, DeGrasse-Tyson and Dicky Feynman would agree. I have never said it has no answers, only that areas that it once covered exclusively, are now the domain of science, namely physics and cosmology.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Thereby: every science has its philosophical assumptions. See my present disclaimer ('There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.') Grappling with these assumptions is philosophy (at least of one of its subdisciplines).

Grappling with these assumptions is the scientific methodology, which has as its foundations philosophy.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Feynman shows a nice example of the ambiguity of scientists about philosophy: on one side, he finds it completely useless ("What is 'talking'"), on the other side you have his reaction on the question of what magnetism 'really' is (I think even you have shared the youtube of that interview here in these fora); there he is clearly taken a well argued philosophical stance, i.e. he is philosophising. 

Yep, one of my favourite videos, and sure, he is philosophising to a certain extent, and I have said we all philosophise at some time, but he is also explaining how depending on how deep one needs to answer that question, and whether one is speaking to an innocent child, lay person, or physicist, the answer has many levels. And essentially he is employing the scientific method, which, yes, has as its foundation stone, philosophy.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Feynman shows a nice example of the ambiguity of scientists about philosophy: on one side, he finds it completely useless ("What is 'talking'"),

And therein lies a point I raised earlier...define talking? define this, define that etc etc Having had those pedant queries thrown at me rather then answering questions directly, has me completely agreeing with Feynman.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

 You will also see that the author himself is not the only one that has both studied physics and philosophy (often in that chronological order). All less talented than Krauss? In cosmology, sure. In philosophy? Definitely not.

Eise...I'm a non scientist, although have made plenty of efforts to learn from reputable reading material, and forums such as this,  and certainly have never studied any philsophy. I see one side (science) as practical, the other just asking questions without any real answers (philosophy) I am also a practical bloke and do not just wax on lyrically about certain things. I do and have done things with regards to world hunger and poverty, and climate change and when asking others what they have done to practically help with some of these problems, get told I am simply blowing my own trumpet from morons that simply take up cyber space on forums such as this. By practical I mean, sponsoring two children (My Mrs mainly responsible for this), limiting my driving to 10,000 kms a year and using public transport...solar panels, waste distribution and plastics sorting. Talk,(philosophising) is cheap, and please note carefully, I am in no way inferring or casting any aspersions on you or your character.

BTW, You'll be interested to know that  in reality have no objection to the following....

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Philosophy and Physics try to answer fundamental questtions about the behaviour of nature.
Physics asks questions whose answers can be tested, while Philosophy asks questions with untestable answers.

At some point, before testing methodology is devised, or possible, for a Physics questiion, it is in effect, a Philosophy question.
All Physics started off as Philosophy, and while the realm of Physics seems to expands as we are able to test what used to be Philosophical questions, it seem that the Philosophical realm shrinks.

 

 

On 5/21/2022 at 10:46 PM, dimreepr said:

It's a good job I took @MigL advice, and invested in a quality 'irony meter'...

What is really ironic is that you who whole heartedly embrace the woo woo that is  karma,  and the supernatural, should see anything ironic about my use, and the conventional every day use of the phrase "merry christmas" and accuse me of religiousity simply to support your extreme attemped implementation of nonsensical PC. Sorry old friend, like much of your philosophy, it won't happen. 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.