Page 447 of 447 FirstFirst ... 347397437445446447
Results 13,381 to 13,396 of 13396

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #13381
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,535
    Maybe philosophizing about philosophy is really metaphilosophy, so there isn't a problem.

  2. #13382
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,774
    Metaphilosophy is clearly philosophy, just like theorems about math are also math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    I'm also philosophizing if I say that philosophy has value, so all I'm really saying is that philosophy has value if philosophy has value.
    The issue is not whether philosophy has no value (that's up to the individual), it's whether or not it can be logically argued that it has no value. That argument is what is logically specious, by Aristotle's proof. Yet many, poor at logic, attempt the argument all the same. You can see it every time you encounter the phrases "navel gazing" or "just semantics"-- whenever I see those words, I know I am looking at the specious argument yet again. Only when one is not compelled by logic may one may pick and choose when to be unbothered by blatant contradictions.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Sep-30 at 12:37 PM.

  3. #13383
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    438
    I came across an interesting article about myths and the future of science that is interesting reading.

    https://theconversation.com/science-...-thrive-124214
    In my own life, the popular myths of great scientists fed a culture that cherished curiosity as a good all on its own. We need to develop these stories, curating them by selecting those that are appropriate and developing new ones that make useful points. As scientists, with a commitment to the truth, we should also ensure that they are accurate representations of reality that also reflect the collective endeavour, rather than the supposed genius of a few white men.

    All cultures need their myths, and each lab needs its lore.

  4. #13384
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,774
    It's really no different from giving Napolean sole credit for conquering Europe in early 1800 or Hitler sole blame for the atrocities of the 1940s. We seek to simplify the story by picking a few key figures and pretending they did everything, completely ignoring all the inputs they took from others, and all the complicities of others, all along the way. It's more about how we do history than how we do science.

  5. #13385
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,714
    If you look at the intellectual shift from proving or finding truth toward failure to disprove or falsify an hypothesis, as suggested by Karl Popper, who i think called himself a philosopher, then the role of philosophy becomes clear as a starting point in science rather than armchair musings. It seems to me that Popper is not universally accepted but supports the MDR hypothesis.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  6. #13386
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,774
    Yes, people always tend toward the most simplistic, even naive, interpretations of everything. So when interpreting science, we always hear about the "search for truth" or the "ultimate answer", when actually science just doesn't work that way at all. Instead, it is about making working hypotheses that hold up for awhile in various contexts, until we find their weaknesses (via falsification) and are thus inspired to create better hypotheses. Notice I never mentioned "truth" at all! Now, of course we don't want to have to run from that word, we do want to have a sense that we are making progress, and that our scientific claims of today are "much more true" than what the ancient Greeks thought, for example. But what this actually requires is a more sophisticated understanding of the entire concept of "scientific truth" than what most people, quite frankly, are willing to embark on. Instead, we often see language that actually seems to imagine that although science has been a process throughout history, for some reason today it is a destination. Since the ancient Greeks would also have thought that, this attitude would seem to be an area where we have made quite minimal progress.

  7. #13387
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,535
    Now I can't click on the "I'm not a robot" boxes without realizing that I don't actually know this to be true. Thanks, MDR.

  8. #13388
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Now I can't click on the "I'm not a robot" boxes without realizing that I don't actually know this to be true. Thanks, MDR.
    But you can still click the box, even though you don't know you're not a robot, because "I'm not a robot" doesn't mean you're not a robot, it means you have satisfied the purpose of saying you're not a robot-- which is much more important. This is the key message of MDR thinking-- it's not what is "actually true" that matters, because that's not what matters to us. It might not even make any sense at all-- given how completely inaccessible is that notion!

  9. #13389
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,535
    But it gives the impression that I do know. That's dishonest.

  10. #13390
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    This is the key message of MDR thinking-- it's not what is "actually true" that matters, because that's not what matters to us. It might not even make any sense at all-- given how completely inaccessible is that notion!
    From "The Nature of Space and Time" lecture series by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.

    Chapter Seven - The Debate

    These lectures have shown very clearly the difference between Roger and me. He's a Platonist and I'm a positivist. He's worried that Schrodinger's cat is in a quantum state, where it is half alive and half dead. He feels that can't correspond to reality. But that doesn't bother me. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what reality is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.
    The late Stephen Hawking and Ken G are not describing MDR because the 'R' part, reality, is not a necessary part of their scientific models (SMDW - Scientific Method Dependent Whatever).

  11. #13391
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    But it gives the impression that I do know. That's dishonest.
    But I am not a robot is a belief statement within MDR and you are entitled to beliefs.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  12. #13392
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,535
    But I don't believe. I'm just claiming it. If it's true that's just a coincidence.

  13. #13393
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,367
    How about this formulation: existence is what is out there. Reality is existence interpreted by consciousness?
    Last edited by gzhpcu; Yesterday at 06:51 PM.

  14. #13394
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,714
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    How about this formulation: existence is what is out there. Reality is existence interpreted by consciousness?
    For you maybe but not for me, how about: Reality is the predictive model I make to make sense of being conscious of being. Existence is an assumption that comes to mind that needs no predictions. Too long? Yes it’s too long for a haiku. But adopting 17 as an expression of reality may be too numerological.?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  15. #13395
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,367
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    For you maybe but not for me, how about: Reality is the predictive model I make to make sense of being conscious of being. Existence is an assumption that comes to mind that needs no predictions. Too long? Yes it’s too long for a haiku. But adopting 17 as an expression of reality may be too numerological.?
    The reality is that we will never agree.

  16. #13396
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,714
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    The reality is that we will never agree.
    Indeed that uncertainty seems to be a feature of reality! :-)
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •