Philosophy, Science & Reality

[Randolpin]

My point was that everyone might agree it is a coconut (of that species) until someone else comes along and points out that they are wrong, that in fact it is not a coconut but a different fruit altogether. Suddenly your "absolute truth" is not so absolute.

 

This is rather like the "black swan" effect. Everyone might think that all swans are white because they have only ever seen white swans. So their absolute truth is that "all swans are white". And then one day a black swan comes along. Suddenly, their absolute truth turns out to be false. (Like that one about all fish living in water.)

But it depends.. We assume that it is absolute truth until it will be discovered that it is not really absolute. It depends because it is not sure that there should be more to discover. But there are factors that a truth is no need to be scrutinized further because it is absolute. Example, the truth that I am typing this sentence now.

 

There is really absolute truth. Another example is the truth that we exist is absolute. Don't tell me that it is still relative because if you do, you would actually not exist. There is only two options, to exist or not exist. The fact that we exist is truly absolute. This is the absolute truth of existence.

 

Sorry if you don't understand what really my point is because of my English. I'm not really a native English speaker and not good in English.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Randolpin

[Klaynos]

But it depends.. We assume that it is absolute truth until it will be discovered that it is not really absolute.

That sounds rather scary to me. Why would your default position be absolute truth? Your position should be scepticism!

 

It depends because it is not sure that there should be more to discover.

I don't think science nor philosophy is for you.

 

But there are factors that a truth is no need to be scrutinized further because it is absolute. Example, the truth that I am typing this sentence now.

 

Nope. You're either in my imagination or a computer simulation where I'm the only true consciousness. I'm yet to decide which.

 

There is really absolute truth. Another example is the truth that we exist is absolute.

Please see my previous sentence.

 

Don't tell me that it is still relative because if you do, you would actually not exist. There is only two options, to exist or not exist.

Or your existence is being modelled in some way.

 

The fact that we exist is truly absolute. This is the absolute truth of existence.

Nope. See my precision comments in this post.

 

Sorry if you don't understand what really my point is because of my English. I'm not really a native English speaker and not good in English.

Your English is not the problem.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Example, the truth that I am typing this sentence now.

There is really absolute truth. Another example is the truth that we exist is absolute. Don't tell me that it is still relative because if you do, you would actually not exist. There is only two options, to exist or not exist. The fact that we exist is truly absolute. This is the absolute truth of existence.

.

.

 

Randolph

 

I think your idea to bring YOURSELF high up , if not uppermost , into the idea of Reality , is a very , very good step .

 

If ALL ELSE fails to come to the fore :

 

You KNOW YOU ARE REAL Because you are thinking and conscious you are thinking , right at this moment you are thinking !

 

I think this was the philosophy of one of the great thinkers ( maybe. Lock, Berkley, or Decart )

 

+1 for your idea

 

Mike

Edited June 18, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Manticore]

I think, therefore I think I am (I think).

[Strange]

But it depends.. We assume that it is absolute truth until it will be discovered that it is not really absolute. It depends because it is not sure that there should be more to discover. But there are factors that a truth is no need to be scrutinized further because it is absolute. Example, the truth that I am typing this sentence now.

 

 

If they can change, then they are not absolute truths.

 

 

 

There is really absolute truth. Another example is the truth that we exist is absolute. Don't tell me that it is still relative because if you do, you would actually not exist. There is only two options, to exist or not exist. The fact that we exist is truly absolute. This is the absolute truth of existence.

 

Some philosophers would argue that we don't exist, or at least we cannot know if we exist. (See also solipsism.)

 

And, according to you, they must be right because philosophy is always correct.

 

 

 

Sorry if you don't understand what really my point is because of my English. I'm not really a native English speaker and not good in English.

 

I understand you perfectly. I am just trying to explain why you are wrong.

You KNOW YOU ARE REAL Because you are thinking and conscious you are thinking , right at this moment you are thinking !

 

I think this was the philosophy of one of the great thinkers ( maybe. Lock, Berkley, or Decart )

 

 

Descartes. But many people have pointed out the flaws in this argument.

[Randolpin]

 

 

If they can change, then they are not absolute truths.

 

 

Yes, I agree

Some philosophers would argue that we don't exist, or at least we cannot know if we exist. (See also solipsism.)

 

 

This philosophies are incorrect (imo).

Why they have that philosophy? Are they don't have consciousness? Obviously not. Consciousness itself tells you that you exist. For example, I am conscious with my whole self, that I exist.

And, according to you, they must be right because philosophy is always correct.

 

No, that is not what I mean. Here. Let me classify two types of Speculation.

 

1.Philosophy (Sound speculation)

2. Unsound speculation

 

Your example of solipsism is classified as my second classification.

 

In this view, my assertion that philosophy is always correct is justified because it is sound speculation.

 

So (imo) the proper meaning of philosophy is speculating in a sound and meaningful way.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Randolpin

[Itoero]

1.Philosophy (Sound speculation)

2. Unsound speculation

 

Your example of solipsism is classified as my second classification.

 

In this view, my assertion that philosophy is always correct is justified because it is sound speculation.

 

So (imo) the proper meaning of philosophy is speculating in a sound and meaningful way.

You seem to think philosophy you don't find useful or if you don't agree with it, then it's unsound and therefor incorrect?

[Randolpin]

You seem to think philosophy you don't find useful or if you don't agree with it, then it's unsound and therefor incorrect?

No, there are standards or requirements that measure an argument or speculation if it is logical or not. Let me call this standards as logical standards.

[Randolpin]

.

I think your idea to bring YOURSELF high up , if not uppermost , into the idea of Reality , is a very , very good step .

 

I don't want to bring myself up. I just want to discuss the truth.

[Itoero]

No, there are standards or requirements that measure an argument or speculation if it is logical or not. Let me call this standards as logical standards.

And who decides what those standards or requirements are?

[Strange]

This philosophies are incorrect (imo).

Why they have that philosophy?

 

 

It is a conclusion from a process of rational thought (you know, philosophy).

 

Are they don't have consciousness? Obviously not. Consciousness itself tells you that you exist. For example, I am conscious with my whole self, that I exist.

 

As already noted, there are many flaws with this simplistic argument. (See the Wikipedia page for a summary of the more obvious problems.)

 

No, that is not what I mean. Here. Let me classify two types of Speculation.

 

1.Philosophy (Sound speculation)

2. Unsound speculation

 

Your example of solipsism is classified as my second classification.

 

Well, thank you for finally answering this question. Why, exactly, do you dismiss solipsism as "unsound speculation"? It is a problem that has challenged philosophers for thousands of years. And yet you are able to simply dismiss it.

 

In this view, my assertion that philosophy is always correct is justified because it is sound speculation.

 

So things you agree with are sound and things you disagree with are unsound? Is that correct?

 

Or, can you tell us how anyone can determine what is sound or unsound ?

 

So (imo) the proper meaning of philosophy is speculating in a sound and meaningful way.

 

 

I don't disagree with that. But... (1) you do not seem able to do this and (2) this does not mean that philosophy is always correct, just that it (should) always be a rational and logical process of analysis.

No, there are standards or requirements that measure an argument or speculation if it is logical or not. Let me call this standards as logical standards.

 

But you seem to be unaware of the basics of logic.

 

Also logic is only half the equation. You need to also consider the truth or otherwise of the initial premises.

 

Have you read about the difference between valid and sound arguments yet?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't want to bring myself up. I just want to discuss the truth.

.

I do not mean you are elevating yourself ( high up above others ) .

 

I mean you are noticing a very important truth . Namely , as Descartes stated ,, the only thing you know with absolute certainty is working outwards from the central you , to the end of your fingers . .,beyond that is .. Out there .. You are all there is in absolute certainty . Everything else , you have to prove by assumptions .

 

Mike

Edited June 19, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I mean you are noticing a very important truth . Namely , as Descartes stated ,, the only thing you know with absolute certainty is working outwards from the central you , to the end of your fingers .

 

 

Sigh. Stop repeating that without thinking about it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms

 

And you certainly don't know for sure that your fingers exist. They could be a product of your imagination. (As could the entire universe, including the embers of this forum.)

[Randolpin]

 

So things you agree with are sound and things you disagree with are unsound? Is that correct?

 

Or, can you tell us how anyone can determine what is sound or unsound ?

 

 

 

When we say sound speculation, it means it follows the standards of logic which founded on a valid premise supported by facts of reality. While unsound speculation may be logical but it's premise is not valid and not supported by facts of reality. It may also be not logical.

[Strange]

When we say sound speculation, it means it follows the standards of logic which founded on a valid premise supported by facts of reality. While unsound speculation may be logical but it's premise is not valid and not supported by facts of reality. It may also be not logical.

 

 

Well, you are mixing up the concepts of validity and soundness, but you are basically correct here.

 

Unfortunately, you are not applying those standards to your own opinions. For example, you appear to dismiss the philosophy of idealism as wrong with no logical argument at all.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Sigh. Stop repeating that without thinking about it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms

 

And you certainly don't know for sure that your fingers exist. They could be a product of your imagination. (As could the entire universe, including the embers of this forum.)

.

 

We were arguing about Decartes and the nature of reality when I was at Brunel College , back in the 1960's. Obviously the nature of reality has a lot of " related to whom , does it apply " . Descarts logical reasoning was :-

 

That the ONLY thing absolute that ' I Descartes know is ' that I exist ' , he took logical reasoned steps in thought , until he reached his finger ends ' , then I think it went a bit woolly , if I recall correctly . Other philosophers then continued the argument , in the great beyond . People like Bishop Berkley, and James Lock .

 

I am ( by my life's experience ) inclined to agree. But I have strayed , by the ( indirect it is true ) experience of life into the outer regions beyond my fingertips . This by the experience of other humans , scientists , astronaughts , astronomers , thinkers , philosophical persons . To have a fuzzy picture extending to the moon , Mars , Jupiter , the asteroids , and beyond to andromeda Galaxy , as well as the deep ocean , rock strata , and beyond. By all these wonderful images and experiences , I am convinced we , including me on the inside region , inside my fingertips , combine to make up a part of fantastic reality. Beyond this expance and depth I ' suspect there is further reality beyond even this ( as indeed Descarte did in his limited access to reality ) .

 

It is time we tried to NOW take a leap of beyond our ' boarders of reality ' as Other Philosophical thought has taken from time to time . We may need to explore the unseen , the invisible , the Unknown . Not to be limited by established Dogma .

 

Mike

Edited June 21, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Thread,

 

Forgive me for not reading through the thread, but I have a contribution to make, from only a scan through and the reading of a few posts.

 

 

The human being is, from my own personal experience, and from the stories of others, a being that senses the world through sight and sound and smell and taste and feeling, including a sense of one's body and balance, that all together associates the human being to the world that he/she is in and of. Allows the human being to move through and affect the world to his or her advantage.

 

Given this starting point, I frame the three, Philosophy, Science and Reality in the following way.

 

Philosophy is the study of reality from the point of view of the human being.

Science is the study of reality from the point of view of an objective observer, stripped of as many human fallacies, and human subjective considerations as possible.

 

Reality is what both study.

 

It seems to me, that truth is going to be the case, whatever humans know about it, say about it, or think about it.

 

However, truth also seems to be noticeable from all directions. That is a true thing is usually true in more than one way. That is I am real. I am also my sister's brother. I am also the guy that lives on the corner and mows his lawn...and so on.

 

A big thing in science is peer review. This does not eliminate human fallacies and human considerations, as a human can not actually take an other than human point of view, but it assures us that the thing actually exists in the waking world, experiencable by others.

 

Math is interesting because it is analogies and relationships and pattern matching and grain size switching, and one thing standing for another...all very human things to do, but it provides a framework, from which two humans can explore reality together, in an exact way, taking as much subjectivity out of the situation as possible. It looks Red. or It is reflecting electromagnetic radiation of between 630 and 700 nanometer in wavelength...are both ways of talking about the same reality.

 

Regards, TAR

The math of philosophy is logic.

The math of science is algebra, geometry and calculus.

The math of reality is everything fits together flawlessly.

Mike Smith Cosmos,

 

Established Dogma ain't such a bad thing. It gives us a common language with which to communicate our thoughts and feelings.

 

Dreams are nice, but they are not, per se, of the waking world. And thusly not empirically sharable, but in an imaginary way.

 

Regards, TAR

Dreams are of reality, but they do not have to fit together flawlessly. Reality ALWAYS fits together flawlessly.

Edited June 21, 2017 by tar

[swansont]

There is really absolute truth. Another example is the truth that we exist is absolute. Don't tell me that it is still relative because if you do, you would actually not exist. There is only two options, to exist or not exist. The fact that we exist is truly absolute. This is the absolute truth of existence.

 

 

I think that you can only claim that one of us exists, since you could be hallucinating the rest.

 

Given this starting point, I frame the three, Philosophy, Science and Reality in the following way.

 

Philosophy is the study of reality from the point of view of the human being.

Science is the study of reality from the point of view of an objective observer, stripped of as many human fallacies, and human subjective considerations as possible.

 

Reality is what both study.

 

Depending on how you define reality, this is not true.

 

Science studies the behavior of nature, not its reality. Physics quite blatantly uses models that have no claim to representing anything real, in order to predict behavior.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Not sure I understand or agree or know who figures out how science should behave.

 

Regards, TAR

[beecee]

I generally try and avoid pure philosophical takes on life, the universe and everything, but what the heck....

A few quotes I have come across in my time.........

'Science is the systematic classification of experience"

"Science is the antidote to the poison of superstition"

"Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know."

"Science is not belief, but the will to find out"

I see those quotes as summing up the discipline of science adequately.

My own addition is that science is a discipline in continued progress.

Science is not interested in reality per se, but to explain the universe around us by the construction of models: If by chance one of those models hits on this "reality"or "truth" then all well and good.

On Philosophy I am generally far more ignorant: but I am aware of another quote attributed to Richard Feynman...it went something like this....

"Scientists are explorers: Philosophers are tourists"

Feynman was generally dismissive of pure philosophical thought.......

Someone [obviously a philosopher enraged by Feynman's dismissiveness] describes Feynamn as follows........

https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science

Ben Trubody finds that philosophy-phobic physicist Feynman is an unacknowledged philosopher of science.

"Richard Feynman (1918-88) was one of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, contributing, among other things, to Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED), for which he won a Nobel Prize. His popular portrayal is of a buffooning genius with a preference for no-nonsense thinking – the sort that by his reckoning seemed in short supply within philosophy. He is noted, and quoted, for his dislike of philosophy, and in particular of the philosophy of science. Any quick trawl of the Internet will bring up quotes attributed to him on the absurdities of philosophy, no doubt informed by his brief flirtation with it at Princeton. Feynman would parody what he saw as ‘dopey’ exercises in linguistic sophistry. As he remarks in a famous lecture series, “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)."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I hold onto Feynman's views basically, and in my own amateurish way see science is the top rung of a ladder, leading up from religion and philosophy.....truth and reality I see as incidental and maybe unknowable at the depths that philosophical jargon go on about and as illustrated by Richard Feynman.

Apologies to all philosophers out there......

Edited June 22, 2017 by beecee

[beecee]

To add to what I said above, here is a lengthy interview with Lawrence Krauss on the criticism by Philosophers of his book, and his elaboration of his view on science, philosophy, reality/nothing........

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-consolation-of-philos/

 

 

A real good read.

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

Not sure I understand or agree or know who figures out how science should behave.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

Scientists, for one. It would be a difficult argument to make that people who have little understanding of science being the ones who define this. I think many scientists could tell you horror stories of what happens when such people are put in managerial positions in charge of science programs.

[tar]

"Science is not interested in reality per se, but to explain the universe around us by the construction of models: If by chance one of those models hits on this "reality"or "truth" then all well and good."

 

"To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature."

 

BeeCee,

 

To me, the person is by definition a scientist. We internalize the entire universe, in an analogous fashion, into a model of the universe constructed with the cells and synapses, connections and signals in our brains. There is not one of us, that knows better how to do this science, than any other or every other human that is so constructed, by nature.

 

Where Lawrence Krauss goes wrong, in my estimation, is when he thinks, or knows, that his model is superior to mine.

 

And that goes for SwansonT as well.

 

One can construct a special club, a regimen of thought, with the same rules and language and analogies and transformations and assumptions as the next guy or girl and call that science, but the science is already done in the noticing and model building that a human does when she walks down the street and experiences reality.

 

That I am not privy to the meeting of professors at Oregon, does not ban me from being a scientist. And the realm of multiverses and string theory and 12 dimensional universes that could have been instead of this one, are not discussions of reality at all, but discussions of the models of reality that exist primarily in the literature and the brains of theorists.

 

So one does not gain ownership of nature, by noticing it, any more than another person gains ownership by noticing it.

 

Where string theory and particle physics models happen to "hit on" reality, fine and good. But it is also fine and good to match your memory of an Oak tree with the Oak tree outside, look at it, go over to it and touch it, and be assured and reassured that your model of reality, your internal model of the entire universe, is actually true.

 

Regards, TAR

[beecee]

 

 

"To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature."

 

 

No one is imposing anything on anyone, other then the application of the scientific method.

 

 

 

BeeCee,

 

To me, the person is by definition a scientist. We internalize the entire universe, in an analogous fashion, into a model of the universe constructed with the cells and synapses, connections and signals in our brains. There is not one of us, that knows better how to do this science, than any other or every other human that is so constructed, by nature.

 

Where Lawrence Krauss goes wrong, in my estimation, is when he thinks, or knows, that his model is superior to mine.

 

And that goes for SwansonT as well.

 

One can construct a special club, a regimen of thought, with the same rules and language and analogies and transformations and assumptions as the next guy or girl and call that science, but the science is already done in the noticing and model building that a human does when she walks down the street and experiences reality.

 

That I am not privy to the meeting of professors at Oregon, does not ban me from being a scientist. And the realm of multiverses and string theory and 12 dimensional universes that could have been instead of this one, are not discussions of reality at all, but discussions of the models of reality that exist primarily in the literature and the brains of theorists.

 

So one does not gain ownership of nature, by noticing it, any more than another person gains ownership by noticing it.

While we all certainly can be "scientists" by adhering to the scientific method, the lack of "proper learning" and ignorance of the laws of physics, may lead some of us normal lay folk up the proverbial garden path, ignorant of science and the scientific method and embracing "superstition" instead.

As Professor Krauss intimated, the Philosophy of science, while indispensable many centuries ago, and still the basis of the scientific method, seems now to have reached a stalemate so to speak.

 

 

 

Where string theory and particle physics models happen to "hit on" reality, fine and good. But it is also fine and good to match your memory of an Oak tree with the Oak tree outside, look at it, go over to it and touch it, and be assured and reassured that your model of reality, your internal model of the entire universe, is actually true.

 

Regards, TAR

The "reality" or "truth" as I have said, maybe unobtainable, if it really at all exists. You, the Oak tree, Me, are star stuff as the great educator Carl Sagan said many times. That star stuff can be traced back to our first fundamentals and even spacetime.

 

 

Here is a nice little video explaining the "nothing" concept and the Universe arising from that same nothing...the video is only a few short minutes and is about half way down the page:

Other appropriate and relevant articles on the same page..............

https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/reality/

Edited June 22, 2017 by beecee

[Mordred]

I should note Lawrence Krauss is not the only Universe from nothing model developer. He certainly popularized the theory but the Universe from nothing idea has been around prior to Krauss. I recall reading older variations.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Mordred