|
On March 29 2015 05:27 excitedBear wrote:
Logical positivism failed because philosophy would have nothing left to debate about.
The irony is that logical positivism itself is part of philosophy.
The application of logical positivism creates a closed system that only allows questions to be asked that can be verified.
It's like going into a box and close the lid from within the box. Quite beautiful actually.
It would mean the end of philosophy, that's why it's not accepted by philosophers.
Actually no--the problem with the relationship between Logical Positivism and Philosophy is that Philosophy is the exploration of all possibilities while Logical Positivism does not wish to interact with things outside its scope. Its akin to putting your head in the sand and smirking about how dumb everyone is for not having your opinions in how best to discuss the nature of the world.
|
On March 29 2015 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 05:27 excitedBear wrote:
Logical positivism failed because philosophy would have nothing left to debate about.
The irony is that logical positivism itself is part of philosophy.
The application of logical positivism creates a closed system that only allows questions to be asked that can be verified.
It's like going into a box and close the lid from within the box. Quite beautiful actually.
It would mean the end of philosophy, that's why it's not accepted by philosophers. Actually no--the problem with the relationship between Logical Positivism and Philosophy is that Philosophy is the exploration of all possibilities while Logical Positivism does not wish to interact with things outside its scope. Its akin to putting your head in the sand and smirking about how dumb everyone is for not having your opinions in how best to discuss the nature of the world.
Right and it turns out that putting your head in the sand and keeping it there works out spectacularly well (as can be seen in the hard sciences).
Physics simply doesn't ask questions like "Is there a free will?" or "What happened before the big bang?". There might come a time when these questions become verifiable and then these questions will be asked.
The crowning of logical positivism can be seen in the initial formulation of quantum physics which doesn't even speak of an objective reality at all. Quantum physics simply provided a mechanism to predict the outcome of experiments. And this model works amazingly well in the actual world (e.g. modern computers as a result of quantum mechanical considerations).
|
Do we really understand what gravity is? Or is "gravity" just a name we give to mostly predictable phenomena that may actually be several different forces influencing a body? Or possibly something else altogether?
|
I can tell you that we don't understand how gravity works.
Furthermore, understanding "What something is" is not really scientific. Science tells you how stuff works, not "what it is". Some people misinterpret "How things work" to mean "What things are", but Science doesn't really answer that question.
|
On March 29 2015 06:17 excitedBear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 29 2015 05:27 excitedBear wrote:
Logical positivism failed because philosophy would have nothing left to debate about.
The irony is that logical positivism itself is part of philosophy.
The application of logical positivism creates a closed system that only allows questions to be asked that can be verified.
It's like going into a box and close the lid from within the box. Quite beautiful actually.
It would mean the end of philosophy, that's why it's not accepted by philosophers. Actually no--the problem with the relationship between Logical Positivism and Philosophy is that Philosophy is the exploration of all possibilities while Logical Positivism does not wish to interact with things outside its scope. Its akin to putting your head in the sand and smirking about how dumb everyone is for not having your opinions in how best to discuss the nature of the world. Right and it turns out that putting your head in the sand and keeping it there works out spectacularly well (as can be seen in the hard sciences). Physics simply doesn't ask questions like "Is there a free will?" or "What happened before the big bang?". There might come a time when these questions become verifiable and then these questions will be asked. The crowning of logical positivism can be seen in the initial formulation of quantum physics which doesn't even speak of an objective reality at all. Quantum physics simply provided a mechanism to predict the outcome of experiments. And this model works amazingly well in the actual world (e.g. modern computers as a result of quantum mechanical considerations).
Science has invented many great things. And many terrible things. Scientists have been able to figure stuff out after positivism, and before positivism. When scientists stop asking "why" they are making what their making an "if" they should be making what they're making is when it becomes a scary world indeed. Trying to create philosophical absolutes is the first step towards dehumanization. All ideas must be explored, all possibilities must be vetted, discussed, and held accountable.
|
We actually understand quite well how gravity works
Or is "gravity" just a name we give to mostly predictable phenomena that may actually be several different forces influencing a body?
No, it most likely is not. Gravity is well understood as a single force. E: or, to be more precise, its is understood not as a force is the traditonal sense, but as Geometrodynamics
I would also like to point out that positivsts oppsed the idea of atoms, etc.
We are lucky that not everyone followed that logic in sience. Citing quantum mechanics as a triumph of positivism seem somewhat strange in that light.
|
So I want a to get a friend in SC2, and he lives in Canada. The problem is, I'm looking at G2A.com for cheap prices, but the Global edition says it doesnt work for US servers. There is also a US edition but it costs more than if i just bought the game on battle.net. So, do you guys think that a version that says "does not work for US servers" would allow a friend to use NA server from Canada?
|
On March 29 2015 06:17 excitedBear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 29 2015 05:27 excitedBear wrote:
Logical positivism failed because philosophy would have nothing left to debate about.
The irony is that logical positivism itself is part of philosophy.
The application of logical positivism creates a closed system that only allows questions to be asked that can be verified.
It's like going into a box and close the lid from within the box. Quite beautiful actually.
It would mean the end of philosophy, that's why it's not accepted by philosophers. Actually no--the problem with the relationship between Logical Positivism and Philosophy is that Philosophy is the exploration of all possibilities while Logical Positivism does not wish to interact with things outside its scope. Its akin to putting your head in the sand and smirking about how dumb everyone is for not having your opinions in how best to discuss the nature of the world. Right and it turns out that putting your head in the sand and keeping it there works out spectacularly well (as can be seen in the hard sciences). Physics simply doesn't ask questions like "Is there a free will?" or "What happened before the big bang?". There might come a time when these questions become verifiable and then these questions will be asked. The crowning of logical positivism can be seen in the initial formulation of quantum physics which doesn't even speak of an objective reality at all. Quantum physics simply provided a mechanism to predict the outcome of experiments. And this model works amazingly well in the actual world (e.g. modern computers as a result of quantum mechanical considerations).
So I don't know anything about philosophy, but I am (was) a physicist and I share hawkings viewpoint regarding "what is time" and similar questions. I think most physicists do, as has been stated. I don't feel like I am putting my head in the sand. It is not a matter of saying that the question should not be asked, more a matter of not being able to produce any empirical data to answer it any time soon, so we leave the question to other disciplines. FOR NOW! > : (
Actually, I still remember my supervisors' opinion on the "what is time" question: "It's what we measure with a clock." Which is essentially the same standpoint, right? Let's talk about what we can measure. If you want to talk about other things, sure go ahead, but it's not really physics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
rumor of logical positivism's demise is greatly exaggerated. it's fairly easy to fix up(adopt realist metaphysics in favor of empiricism) and either its ideas or the debates around them still guide much of philosophy.
the self consistency 'criticism' is fairly harmless.
|
On March 29 2015 08:08 Paljas wrote:Gravity is well understood as a single force. E: or, to be more precise, its is understood not as a force is the traditonal sense, but as Geometrodynamics
Something something dark matter something something.
On March 28 2015 19:25 excitedBear wrote:
Why do people still discuss metaphysics?
Hasn't that become completely obsolete?
To agree with this would be to take a distinctly anti-intellectual position. And what event, by the way, caused its alleged obsolescence?
On March 27 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On March 27 2015 03:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
N-1 of all choices provides a chance of providing a reward for being right.
What if there is a God that rewards atheism and punishes theism. Lots like that already. One is called Christianity. First rule => worship no other gods Then turns himself human and says to worship him. Logically, you're not worshipping a god but a human and aren't allowed to worship anyone else. So you now have a god telling you to practice atheism. No... what. Jesus is not human.
Alright, time for cleanup. The Christian position is that Jesus is "fully human, fully divine." There were early gnostics who insisted he was purely divine, and later movements that suggested him to be merely human, and the Mormons still have this weird deal, but the position of Christianity as such is not "atheism" (you're certainly not supposed to stop worshiping/praying to God) nor is it that Jesus "wasn't human."
Incidentally, I think Pascal's wager is a pretty poor argument for Christianity. But it seems like a very good argument against Atheism.
|
On March 29 2015 11:05 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 06:17 excitedBear wrote:On March 29 2015 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 29 2015 05:27 excitedBear wrote:
Logical positivism failed because philosophy would have nothing left to debate about.
The irony is that logical positivism itself is part of philosophy.
The application of logical positivism creates a closed system that only allows questions to be asked that can be verified.
It's like going into a box and close the lid from within the box. Quite beautiful actually.
It would mean the end of philosophy, that's why it's not accepted by philosophers. Actually no--the problem with the relationship between Logical Positivism and Philosophy is that Philosophy is the exploration of all possibilities while Logical Positivism does not wish to interact with things outside its scope. Its akin to putting your head in the sand and smirking about how dumb everyone is for not having your opinions in how best to discuss the nature of the world. Right and it turns out that putting your head in the sand and keeping it there works out spectacularly well (as can be seen in the hard sciences). Physics simply doesn't ask questions like "Is there a free will?" or "What happened before the big bang?". There might come a time when these questions become verifiable and then these questions will be asked. The crowning of logical positivism can be seen in the initial formulation of quantum physics which doesn't even speak of an objective reality at all. Quantum physics simply provided a mechanism to predict the outcome of experiments. And this model works amazingly well in the actual world (e.g. modern computers as a result of quantum mechanical considerations). So I don't know anything about philosophy, but I am (was) a physicist and I share hawkings viewpoint regarding "what is time" and similar questions. I think most physicists do, as has been stated. I don't feel like I am putting my head in the sand. It is not a matter of saying that the question should not be asked, more a matter of not being able to produce any empirical data to answer it any time soon, so we leave the question to other disciplines. FOR NOW! > : ( Actually, I still remember my supervisors' opinion on the "what is time" question: "It's what we measure with a clock." Which is essentially the same standpoint, right? Let's talk about what we can measure. If you want to talk about other things, sure go ahead, but it's not really physics.
Most if not all theoretical physicists would object to that last point.
|
On March 30 2015 01:16 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 08:08 Paljas wrote:Gravity is well understood as a single force. E: or, to be more precise, its is understood not as a force is the traditonal sense, but as Geometrodynamics
Something something dark matter something something. Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 19:25 excitedBear wrote:
Why do people still discuss metaphysics?
Hasn't that become completely obsolete? To agree with this would be to take a distinctly anti-intellectual position. And what event, by the way, caused its alleged obsolescence? Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On March 27 2015 03:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On March 27 2015 03:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
N-1 of all choices provides a chance of providing a reward for being right.
What if there is a God that rewards atheism and punishes theism. Lots like that already. One is called Christianity. First rule => worship no other gods Then turns himself human and says to worship him. Logically, you're not worshipping a god but a human and aren't allowed to worship anyone else. So you now have a god telling you to practice atheism. No... what. Jesus is not human. Alright, time for cleanup. The Christian position is that Jesus is "fully human, fully divine." There were early gnostics who insisted he was purely divine, and later movements that suggested him to be merely human, and the Mormons still have this weird deal, but the position of Christianity as such is not "atheism" (you're certainly not supposed to stop worshiping/praying to God) nor is it that Jesus "wasn't human." Incidentally, I think Pascal's wager is a pretty poor argument for Christianity. But it seems like a very good argument against Atheism.
Pascal's wager fails because any religion which requires faith for eternal happiness would necessarily have something judging the person's faith. A deathbed convert isn't real faith, its hedging bets.
|
Pascal's wager is not an argument for Christianity per se, as the rest of the Pensées contain many such arguments against other relegion-which are what they are obviously, Pascal should have read more Spinoza. Anyway, context matters, or else one might end up using out of place arguments. When in doubt, one should assume the famours philosopher is smarter than what one thinks- except if he is arguing against another famous philosopher or if it's Wittgenstein.
Edit : typically the post above me doesn't really understand what Pascal's project in the Pensées is.
|
On March 29 2015 08:43 Psychonian wrote:
So I want a to get a friend in SC2, and he lives in Canada. The problem is, I'm looking at G2A.com for cheap prices, but the Global edition says it doesnt work for US servers. There is also a US edition but it costs more than if i just bought the game on battle.net. So, do you guys think that a version that says "does not work for US servers" would allow a friend to use NA server from Canada?
can someone pls answer this question 
|
On March 30 2015 01:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 01:16 Yoav wrote:On March 29 2015 08:08 Paljas wrote:Gravity is well understood as a single force. E: or, to be more precise, its is understood not as a force is the traditonal sense, but as Geometrodynamics
Something something dark matter something something. On March 28 2015 19:25 excitedBear wrote:
Why do people still discuss metaphysics?
Hasn't that become completely obsolete? To agree with this would be to take a distinctly anti-intellectual position. And what event, by the way, caused its alleged obsolescence? On March 27 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On March 27 2015 03:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On March 27 2015 03:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
N-1 of all choices provides a chance of providing a reward for being right.
What if there is a God that rewards atheism and punishes theism. Lots like that already. One is called Christianity. First rule => worship no other gods Then turns himself human and says to worship him. Logically, you're not worshipping a god but a human and aren't allowed to worship anyone else. So you now have a god telling you to practice atheism. No... what. Jesus is not human. Alright, time for cleanup. The Christian position is that Jesus is "fully human, fully divine." There were early gnostics who insisted he was purely divine, and later movements that suggested him to be merely human, and the Mormons still have this weird deal, but the position of Christianity as such is not "atheism" (you're certainly not supposed to stop worshiping/praying to God) nor is it that Jesus "wasn't human." Incidentally, I think Pascal's wager is a pretty poor argument for Christianity. But it seems like a very good argument against Atheism. Pascal's wager fails because any religion which requires faith for eternal happiness would necessarily have something judging the person's faith. A deathbed convert isn't real faith, its hedging bets.
AFAIK the specific wager itself does not hinge on faith, but more the concept of believing something happens after dying or nothing happens after dying. The specifics of that belief are irrelevant for the argument. Being that its usually used to defend christianity, the assumption is "faith" but it could just as easily be used to defend the practice of human sacrifice to the old gods.
Also--that whole deathbed convert/"believer in a foxhole" discussion is problematic for both christians and non-christians and is cause for MUCH debate even amongst believers.
For example, if you honestly believe in heaven and you honestly believe simply saying it in your deathbed is all that's needed--what's stopping you from saying no to all laws and murdering and raping and stealing as much as you want? Calvanists had this problem also--hence the whole "Elect" bullshit their paperwork eventually had to prescribe their followers. Christian doctrines needs a LOT of counter-rules to prevent true believers from just committing suicide for a fast track to heaven, which leads to lots of confusing back and forths of quality of good vs quantity of good blah blah blah. If your works matter, then what if you've already done too many bad things, if it doesn't matter, why stop doing bad things when I can say sorry later, etc...
And that's just the confusion amongst believers. When you start bringing in other variables it starts getty muddy real quick.
|
On March 30 2015 01:16 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 08:08 Paljas wrote:Gravity is well understood as a single force. E: or, to be more precise, its is understood not as a force is the traditonal sense, but as Geometrodynamics
Something something dark matter something something.
You really have no clue about the border between gravity and elementary particle physics?
Just because we have not found the dark matter particles yet, doesn't mean we don't understand their gravity interactions. Physics is not "everything goes", it all interconnects and confirms each other.
@Thieving Magpie
I still don't get why you think anyone gets convinced by your argument about an afterlife, when your assumption already is that there is a 100% likelyhood of an afterlife. Your failure is still assigning "equal" propabilities to unequal ideas. You yourself carefully selected infinitly many "there is an afterlife" scenarios and compared it to a zero measure scenario of there is none.
With that ridiculous method i can construct a dense set of scenarios of "no afterlife" that has an infinitly bigger measure than your infinite discrete "there is an afterlife" scenarios, and the overall propability tilts again to 100% for no afterlife and 0% for there is an afterlife.
You still dont get that you unfairly constructed and assigned propabilites to reconfirm your initial idea that there is pretty likely an afterlife, when that is a terribly stupid anthropocentric idea.
|
On March 30 2015 03:01 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 01:16 Yoav wrote:On March 29 2015 08:08 Paljas wrote:Gravity is well understood as a single force. E: or, to be more precise, its is understood not as a force is the traditonal sense, but as Geometrodynamics
Something something dark matter something something. You really have no clue about the border between gravity and elementary particle physics? Just because we have not found the dark matter particles yet, doesn't mean we don't understand their gravity interactions. Physics is not "everything goes", it all interconnects and confirms each other. @Thieving Magpie I still don't get why you think anyone gets convinced by your argument about an afterlife, when your assumption already is that there is a 100% likelyhood of an afterlife. Your failure is still assigning "equal" propabilities to unequal ideas. You yourself carefully selected infinitly many "there is an afterlife" scenarios and compared it to a zero measure scenario of there is none. With that ridiculous method i can construct a dense set of scenarios of "no afterlife" that has an infinitly bigger measure than your infinite discrete "there is an afterlife" scenarios, and the overall propability tilts again to 100% for no afterlife and 0% for there is an afterlife. You still dont get that you unfairly constructed and assigned propabilites to reconfirm your initial idea that there is pretty likely an afterlife, when that is a terribly stupid anthropocentric idea.
Except not once have I argued for an afterlife?
I've only talked about Pascal's wager and how it does not provide an equality of cost in it's logic. There's nothing wrong with assuming we don't know what happens after death and to assume that there are infinite possibilities that occur. Some of which has human experience in it and others has non-human experience in it. Of all the infinite possibilities only one has nothing pop up: there's an infinite number of everything else--not all of which are divine in nature. Quit bringing in anti-religious bias against someone not even making a case for it.
Here's the truth about what we experience after death: we do no know. To pretend we can place more value on one opinion over another in an I observable topic is downright anti-intellectual.
|
On March 30 2015 06:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 03:01 puerk wrote:On March 30 2015 01:16 Yoav wrote:On March 29 2015 08:08 Paljas wrote:Gravity is well understood as a single force. E: or, to be more precise, its is understood not as a force is the traditonal sense, but as Geometrodynamics
Something something dark matter something something. You really have no clue about the border between gravity and elementary particle physics? Just because we have not found the dark matter particles yet, doesn't mean we don't understand their gravity interactions. Physics is not "everything goes", it all interconnects and confirms each other. @Thieving Magpie I still don't get why you think anyone gets convinced by your argument about an afterlife, when your assumption already is that there is a 100% likelyhood of an afterlife. Your failure is still assigning "equal" propabilities to unequal ideas. You yourself carefully selected infinitly many "there is an afterlife" scenarios and compared it to a zero measure scenario of there is none. With that ridiculous method i can construct a dense set of scenarios of "no afterlife" that has an infinitly bigger measure than your infinite discrete "there is an afterlife" scenarios, and the overall propability tilts again to 100% for no afterlife and 0% for there is an afterlife. You still dont get that you unfairly constructed and assigned propabilites to reconfirm your initial idea that there is pretty likely an afterlife, when that is a terribly stupid anthropocentric idea. Except not once have I argued for an afterlife? I've only talked about Pascal's wager and how it does not provide an equality of cost in it's logic. There's nothing wrong with assuming we don't know what happens after death and to assume that there are infinite possibilities that occur. Some of which has human experience in it and others has non-human experience in it. Of all the infinite possibilities only one has nothing pop up: there's an infinite number of everything else--not all of which are divine in nature. Quit bringing in anti-religious bias against someone not even making a case for it. Here's the truth about what we experience after death: we do no know. To pretend we can place more value on one opinion over another in an I observable topic is downright anti-intellectual.
Just because one set of possibilities is infinite doesn't mean that it is guaranteed that one of the possibilities is what happens.
There are an infinite number of odd numbers, none of which are 4.
|
There's also an infinite number of hells you might fall into. How can you avoid it?
|
On March 30 2015 10:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 06:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 30 2015 03:01 puerk wrote:On March 30 2015 01:16 Yoav wrote:On March 29 2015 08:08 Paljas wrote:Gravity is well understood as a single force. E: or, to be more precise, its is understood not as a force is the traditonal sense, but as Geometrodynamics
Something something dark matter something something. You really have no clue about the border between gravity and elementary particle physics? Just because we have not found the dark matter particles yet, doesn't mean we don't understand their gravity interactions. Physics is not "everything goes", it all interconnects and confirms each other. @Thieving Magpie I still don't get why you think anyone gets convinced by your argument about an afterlife, when your assumption already is that there is a 100% likelyhood of an afterlife. Your failure is still assigning "equal" propabilities to unequal ideas. You yourself carefully selected infinitly many "there is an afterlife" scenarios and compared it to a zero measure scenario of there is none. With that ridiculous method i can construct a dense set of scenarios of "no afterlife" that has an infinitly bigger measure than your infinite discrete "there is an afterlife" scenarios, and the overall propability tilts again to 100% for no afterlife and 0% for there is an afterlife. You still dont get that you unfairly constructed and assigned propabilites to reconfirm your initial idea that there is pretty likely an afterlife, when that is a terribly stupid anthropocentric idea. Except not once have I argued for an afterlife? I've only talked about Pascal's wager and how it does not provide an equality of cost in it's logic. There's nothing wrong with assuming we don't know what happens after death and to assume that there are infinite possibilities that occur. Some of which has human experience in it and others has non-human experience in it. Of all the infinite possibilities only one has nothing pop up: there's an infinite number of everything else--not all of which are divine in nature. Quit bringing in anti-religious bias against someone not even making a case for it. Here's the truth about what we experience after death: we do no know. To pretend we can place more value on one opinion over another in an I observable topic is downright anti-intellectual. Just because one set of possibilities is infinite doesn't mean that it is guaranteed that one of the possibilities is what happens. There are an infinite number of odd numbers, none of which are 4.
It's a good thing that the set N possible outcomes and not N possible outcomes assumin Y restrictions...
We are talking about unobservable events, not specifically demarcated divisions of a totality I already understood variables such as numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
