Enduring Problems in Philosophy

Ren said:
That's a very deep point. I admit that I do not know how to answer it. But it also seems to me that the notion of rule (or 'template' as you used in a comment to an earlier blog post of mine) is very difficult to eliminate from the basic metaphysics of the universe. I don't think it is convincing to argue that such rules/templates are mere reifications of the human mind. The mind too, after all, has to work on that something which it conceptualises as rule, law, or template. The something is still there, external to the mind, and it isn't in itself physical.

We are back to the Kantian notion of the thing-in-itself, lol.
Click to expand...
I quite agree Ren, though it's more insight than logic or empirical observation. If I had to place a bet on it, I would put my money on what I'm calling the software, particularly in it's meta-software aspect (the 'rules' that determine how rules emerge and work), as having objective existence, and one which transcends the world we know - by which I mean that sufficient of it is independent of the existence of the Universe that it can determine our origin prior to its existence, and its initial content. By 'initial' I don't just mean in temporal terms, but in terms of determination too.
 
Ren said:
The mind too, after all, has to work on that something which it conceptualises as rule, law, or template. The something is still there, external to the mind, and it isn't in itself physical.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
John K said:
I quite agree Ren, though it's more insight than logic or empirical observation. If I had to place a bet on it, I would put my money on what I'm calling the software, particularly in it's meta-software aspect (the 'rules' that determine how rules emerge and work), as having objective existence, and one which transcends the world we know - by which I mean that sufficient of it is independent of the existence of the Universe that it can determine our origin prior to its existence, and its initial content. By 'initial' I don't just mean in temporal terms, but in terms of determination too.
Click to expand...

The breath within the breath and the thought within the thought :thonking:
 
mintoots said:
@John K @Ren

But how certain are we though that our essence isn't somewhat imprinted on the quantum physics level? We as a human specie aren't that well versed with the particulars of quantum physics yet. The probability of there being an equivalent of DNA strands at the quantum physics level may still be out there. One other question is, could we sufficiently claim that our essence is in our DNA strands? I suppose not, yes? Perhaps our essences are necessarily composites of several temporal and physical aspects. No?
Click to expand...
I don't think so, mintoots.

I think our essence is a composite of components in the smaller, quantum realm. You could have a brick house. Perhaps tens of thousands of bricks. The house is not imprinted on the bricks though the bricks make up the house.
 
Just thought I'd chime in more on physics.

I have a chemistry background and naturally believed what I was taught. But, after having read some Mathis, I think the entirety of chemistry is pretty much mistaken. Why would a bunch of positively charged particles reside within a small volume (protons in the nucleus)? Does that make any sense? Allegedly, there is this strong force that keeps them intact. Sounds to me like a parlor trick. And how about electron bonding? Really? When I was a kid, I couldn't get the like sides of two magnets to touch. It's naturally repulsive.

And I mentioned The Copenhagen Confession. Physics nowadays is incredibly esoteric mathematics that models experimental data. But, the mathematics has little to no correlation to physics, objects in motion.

Mathis completely constructed the entire periodic table with a whole other model for chemistry.

http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf

He also demonstrates that when motion is involved, pi = 4. One of his followers verified it with a simple experiment.

http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf

The guy is off the charts brilliant. He is also a painter, a poet. Amazing dude.
 
Wyote said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::sweatsmile:
o2b said:
I don't think so, mintoots.

I think our essence is a composite of components in the smaller, quantum realm. You could have a brick house. Perhaps tens of thousands of bricks. The house is not imprinted on the bricks though the bricks make up the house.
Click to expand...
Yes, but as DNA somewhat dictates growth patterns, wouldn't it be possible that a similar code is applied on the quantum level? I am with you on the composite of components as the totality of identity though. But also I just think that we can't surely rule out the possibility that there could be a set of instruction codes that govern the quantum too.
 
Ren said:
I don't think it is convincing to argue that such rules/templates are mere reifications of the human mind.
Click to expand...

Renny I want to come back at length to this. Something about this reminds me of the academic body of knowledge and of why revisiting it is endless. Something about the differentiations from theories and postulates and rules and laws that set the constructs for what is widely accepted and i'm wondering about its implications on essence and reality.

But for now, I am drunk on antihistamines so I must sleep. Hopefully I'll wake up with improved cognitive prowess. LMAO. So fancy.
 
mintoots said:
Renny I want to come back at length to this. Something about this reminds me of the academic body of knowledge and of why revisiting it is endless. Something about the differentiations from theories and postulates and rules and laws that set the constructs for what is widely accepted and i'm wondering about its implications on essence and reality.
Click to expand...

Well that's exactly right, Min. You guessed an important implication of the move 'beyond' essence here. If there is no essence, then science itself doesn't have an essence. And if science doesn't have an essence, then it is impossible to state, once and for all, in an eternal list of properties, what science is. In other words, there is no possibility of securely grounding science in something eternal. Therefore what you call the "revisit of the academic body of knowledge" is indeed endless, endlessly creative, and contingent. This is roughly in keeping with Thomas Kuhn's argument in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
 
o2b said:
He also demonstrates that when motion is involved, pi = 4. One of his followers verified it with a simple experiment.
Click to expand...
Hmmm! It depends on what you understand as the definition of pi. The definition is normally accepted to be the ratio between the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Anyone with a bit of string and a ruler can establish this is approx 22/7 for any circle we choose to measure. There are assumptions though. One is that space is flat - if you do this on the surface of a sphere, for example, you’ll get a different answer if you measure the diameter across the surface of the sphere.. If the circle is moving at relativistic speeds relative to you, then it might be different too because space contracts along the direction of travel, but I don’t know.

What is clear though is that the universe wouldn’t exist as we know it if pi has a different value to what we know. It’s intimately, critically and fundamentally bound to reality. This is one of the great mysteries of the World.
 
@John K,

Maybe have a look at Mathis' proof as well as the experiment. It's pretty wild.
 
Ren said:
Well that's exactly right, Min. You guessed an important implication of the move 'beyond' essence here. If there is no essence, then science itself doesn't have an essence. And if science doesn't have an essence, then it is impossible to state, once and for all, in an eternal list of properties, what science is. In other words, there is no possibility of securely grounding science in something eternal. Therefore what you call the "revisit of the academic body of knowledge" is indeed endless, endlessly creative, and contingent. This is roughly in keeping with Thomas Kuhn's argument in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read that one and was particularly enamoured with his discussion on paradigm shifts... But I'm not ready to get back to this yet. I'll chew on it more.
 
mintoots said:
Please tell me you pronounced your Ls with Rs. It would be a disservice to the song if you didn't.

Edit: i got it mixed up.
Click to expand...

That distinction is kinda tenuous because Japanese doesn't treat l and r in a way that could be labeled as a mispronunciation in any case. The closest relative to these letters is らりるれろ, which would be "rarirurero", but you're losing important nuance in the transliteration. These phonemes are pronounced as both r and l rolled together, which is why it may sound like one or another in different circumstances.

To sufficiently philosophize this, I guess you could say that Japanese is phonetically monistic.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
That distinction is kinda tenuous because Japanese doesn't treat l and r in a way that could be labeled as a mispronunciation in any case. The closest relative to these letters is らりるれろ, which would be "rarirurero", but you're losing important nuance in the transliteration. These phonemes are pronounced as both r and l rolled together, which is why it may sound like one or another in different circumstances.

To sufficiently philosophize this, I guess you could say that Japanese is phonetically monistic.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif

Shall/may/can I not jest without being philosophized in this thread?!?!

But yes, I understand. Sort of like the ㄹ in Hangeul.

rlrlrlrl
(As a cycle)



-end of comment-
 
Ren said:
Every word used in this thread ought to be sufficiently philosophised.
Click to expand...
'This'? 'Sufficiently'? It's all just a social game to you, isn't it.


Wyote said:
Wait-what-meme-rage-face.jpg
Click to expand...

0*tqA6vNZ7tjkIpSqc



mintoots said:
Shall/may/can I not jest without being philosophized in this thread?!?!
Click to expand...
Philosophizing is really just a multi-layered joke you take to a point where nobody can tell whether you're still joking anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top