The Nature of philosophy.

[Lasse]

What is the task of philosophy?

Isn't it to discus scientific recognition's Natural applications and their validity in Reality?

Be as clear and sort possible!

Doesn't Science has the obligation/task/function to answer logic driven, philosophically raised questions from the area of expertise?

Can science be dogmatic? 1/0

Can I request as an user scientific clarity?

E.g: What is Space and How big is it approx? What is Nothing? What is Mathematics? What is the smallest entity I can count? What is time? What does the numbers do? How do we account them? 1*0...

Can we express reality with mathematics? - Looks like Digitalisation has the potential eventually...

Edited April 12, 2018 by Lasse

[dimreepr]

Way to many questions for a sensible discussion, please have a think and ask the question you most want answering/discussing. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by dimreepr

[Lasse]

I have too many questions but good point!

Any answer should be so simple at its fundamentals that a 5 years old can understand it easily. They part of Nature and they sense its functions. (Lack of Energy matter and information in a given space (time) i.e: Mammi missing, her value is Zero!=crying)

so still we can count Mami as One but like this we are missing the point of recognition as the question of the moment. What is the observed 0 as a reference point. Mami is not there 0×0=0. 

The explanation and reality has to match.

Learning is a life long process...

Reality is a good source of information even my capability to perceive it is limited.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Lasse

[koti]

4 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Any answer should be so simple at its fundamentals that a 5 years old can understand it easily.

No. Thats why we don’t teach Nietzche, Kant or quantum mechanics to 5 year olds. You need a certain level of knowledge to be able to understand complex subjects. Or even ask sensible questions. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

What is Nothing? What is Mathematics?

https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

A Universe from Nothing

by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

In  the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I find this admittedly speculative scenario, far more logical then any form of ID. As Carl says.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Way to many questions for a sensible discussion, please have a think and ask the question you most want answering/discussing. 

Indeed so +1

 

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

What is the task of philosophy?

Isn't it to discus scientific recognition's Natural applications and their validity in Reality?

Be as clear and sort possible!

Doesn't Science has the obligation/task/function to answer logic driven, philosophically raised questions from the area of expertise?

Can science be dogmatic? 1/0

Can I request as an user scientific clarity?

 

You seem to want to do a sort of 'compare and contrast' betweeen Philosophy and Science.

 

Why not take a specific subject instance and discuss what Philosophy and Science will tell you about.

For example Compare and contrast the Science and Philosophy of these two bridges.

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

I've often pondered this, wondering if this event could have happened multiple times driving the continuing expansion.

Edit, maybe that's for another thread.

Edited April 12, 2018 by dimreepr

[Eise]

The nature of philosophy is no-nature.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Lasse said:

What is the task of philosophy?

One task of philosophy is to analyse the questions we ask and hence come up with better questions. 

5 hours ago, Lasse said:

Isn't it to discus scientific recognition's Natural applications and their validity in Reality?

That is one area of philosophy: Philosophy of Science. This asks questions like: what is science? What is science for? How should science be done? How do we tell good science from bad science? Who should pay for science? Is science a good thing? Are there questions science should not ask? And so on ...

As for the rest. Too many random questions. They need separate threads in the appropriate part of the forum. 

10 minutes ago, Eise said:

The nature of philosophy is no-nature.

If you see The Philosopher on the road, kill him. 

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Eise said:

The nature of philosophy is no-nature.

I can't help but be a little amused by this answer, given our initial confrontation. Not saying you're wrong (wouldn't dare, given, your eloquence), but it is kinda funny.

Edited April 12, 2018 by dimreepr

[Eise]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you see The Philosopher on the road, kill him. 

But only The Philosopher, please. Not every philosopher...

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I can't help but be a little amused by this answer, given our initial confrontation. Not saying you're wrong, but it is kinda funny.

My sentence is true, ironic and a kind of Rorschach test.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Eise said:

My sentence is true, ironic and a kind of Rorschach test.

The latter seem to have worked already. 

[Lasse]

40 minutes ago, Eise said:

The nature of philosophy is no-nature.

Could you please rephrase what you mean?

Edited April 12, 2018 by Lasse

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Could you please refrain what you mean?

No better example of what words mean.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Could you please refrain what you mean?

Hear, hear, I second and third and fourth that. +1

28 minutes ago, Eise said:

My sentence is true, ironic and a kind of Rorschach test.

 

Well I'm so stuck-in-the-ink I can only see blobs.

 

So would someone please explain this hi falutin 'rgument to a plebian troglodyte?

[NimrodTheGoat]

the task of philosophy is to squabble over the meaning of words

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, NimrodTheGoat said:

the task of philosophy is to squabble over the meaning of words

Is it? Meaning WTF...

[NimrodTheGoat]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Is it? Meaning WTF...

what is meaning? can we even discuss? what is it?

can we even have  k      n        o         w           l          e            d                                g                e          ??

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, NimrodTheGoat said:

what is meaning? can we even discuss? what is it?

can we even have  k      n        o         w           l          e            d                                g                e          ??

Who knew?

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who knew?

It is within the realms of philosophy.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

It is within the realms of philosophy.

And forgotten just as easily. 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And forgotten just as easily. 

Yes, it is rather ephemeral. You walk along the philosophical  path, only to often  forget where you've been.   

Edited April 12, 2018 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, it is rather ephemeral. You walk along the philosophical  path, only to often  forget where you've been.   

Who knew?

 

[Eise]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

The latter seem to have worked already. 

Yep.

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

Could you please rephrase what you mean?

Several possible answers:

1. No
2. For a serious exposé about what philosophy is, see my posting here.
3. To be honest, I am irritated by such questions. I have studied philosophy at the university, and my toes bend when I see such questions. But I decided to take it with humour. In my opinion it makes no sense to ask for the nature of philosophy.
4. Yes

OK? You too, Studiot?

[koti]

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

Yep.

Several possible answers:

1. No
2. For a serious exposé about what philosophy is, see my posting here

Before I click the exposé I need to know whether its a see1 or see2 that I need to look at it with.