Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
No, I dont. Because pure empirical evidence is not something we can rely on...
Logic trumps empiricism, and so does praxeology.
If someone came up to you and said, "I just observed something that is A and not A at the same time," you wouldn't chuck out logic. You'd probably think the person was crazy, or look for some basic error in their assumptions (e.g. an fallacy of equivocation, one of their A's is not really identical to the other.)
Enough of such study and we find the new and larger world/universe that QM has opened for business.
If someone told you that they saw water running uphill, you wouldn't say, "Oh well, the law of gravity doesn't hold." Again, you'd look for errors in assumptions related to the law of gravity. Was it an optical illusion? Was energy added (a hand pump?) Did it occur in a space capsule? Similarly, if someone says a rise in price, of apples, gold, iPods, or labor, didn't result in lowering sales, you don't chuck out the praxeological law that people prefer more to less. You look for assumptions that don't hold. Was it really ceterus paribus, or unconsidered factors effect it?
The assumptions of empiricism are refuted in the findings of QM.
I like the perspective aspect. Especially since i think our own perspective is all we will ever have.
I like the perspective aspect. Especially since i think our own perspective is all we will ever have.
Isn't the point of science to go beyond our personal perspective to objectivity?
No it is not.
'Objectivity' is a fantasy;
In The Tao of Physics, Fritjof Capra, said in 1982:
"I now believe that the world view of mystical tradition is the best and most appropriate philosophical background for the theories of modern science."
David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 69;
"even if one supposes that the physically significant variables actually exist with sharply defined values (as is demanded by classical mechanics) then we could never measure them simultaneously, for the interaction between the observing apparatus and what is observed always involves an exchange of one or more indivisible and uncontrollably fluctuating quanta." (Large nail in the coffin of 'classical physics!)
Furthermore, in quantum physics the observer participates in the system of observation to such an extent that the system cannot be viewed as independent. That meant, at least in the quantum context, au revoir to the Cartesian notion of an external universe, independent of cognition. Most significantly, it had been discovered that the energy we call an electron may become manifest both as a wave and as a particle, depending on the measuring conditions.
In the famous (idealized) two-slit experiment, we are asked to imagine a wall seen from above, with two holes spaced apart. In front of the wall is an electron gun and behind it, a detector. When a single electron is aimed at the wall, the pattern displayed on the detector indicates wave interference. This extraordinary phenomenon suggests that the electron has gone through both holes at once, in the form or function of a wave, and interfered with itself.
The electron "knows" that both holes are open. Yet, if observed, an electron is seen to go through one hole or the other, and is registered on the detector as a particle. It is as though the electron experiences or even creates a parallel world in which it is in two places at once-a process that can never be observed directly, for the moment an attempt is made to do so, the wave function immediately collapses. The particle "knows" it is being watched! It also behaves as if it knows what other particles are doing. In this context, objective knowledge of a supposed material world is simply impossible.
So each of us should stick with his personal perspective that Earth is flat, and not mind what science tells us?
It really does not follow from the premises the (complete) objective knowledge of a material world is impossible, that we should remain with our subjective beliefs (whatever they are).
Generally, this seems to be the case.
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
-Maxwell Planck
There is no such thing as 'objective'. It is a 'belief' for which there is no evidence. Ultimately there is no real 'subject/object' distinction, but by Perspective/'belief'.
All premises considered, it certainly does.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, present it.
I don't think it is the case that most people believe the world is flat, do you?
But, even if that were true, that does not mean that they should stick with that belief.
And I wrote not that they do have that belief, but even if they do, they ought not to have that belief,
since it has been shown to be false.
Just glance at satellite picture of Earth, for one piece of evidence.
I once heard the question; "I don't think it is the case that most people believe the world rides on a turtle, do you? Certainly not people who have had any education. Now we know it's flat, and attached to the sky vault, like the sun!"
Odd how that (general) conversation pops up every few years...
(If you could access your 'read-between-the-lines' feature, you would have an easier time understanding what I'm talking about.)
Sorry, I have difficulty with your language.
First, I do not advocate any 'beliefs', whatsoever.
Second, nothing is the same from moment to moment.
Third, I do not advocate 'belief' in (the vanity of) 'free-will/choice'. What is, is!
Fourth, there are no (vain) 'shoulds' in 'this' world. What is, is!
Which, in 'this' world, renders the question 'meaningless'.
What vanity is this that you would assume to decide what is or is not appropriate for another Perspective to perceive. Sorry, but the Universe is complete already. It doesn't need your assistence. But, we'll keep your number in our database and if we ever need another god, we'll give you a call...
Gee, I wonder who's saying that same thing about you and your beliefs?
Ahhhh, Perspective. We all see the elephant from unique 'angles', and you are attempting to 'prove' that the trunk that I perceive is 'false' because it doesn't appear like the tree-like thigh before you?
I find all Perspectives to be true features of the complete Universe. Even egoPerspectives (thank Dog!)...
'Everyone' sees the evidence/Universe from 'his own' unique Perspective. There is no one-size-fits-all "been shown to be false".
"'True' and 'false' is in the ego of the beholder."
[CENTER]Yup,
looks like a beautiful
coin!
Like a turquoise,
set in the ebony of
night...[/CENTER]
as someone once remarked about a view like perspectivism, not only is it not true, it is not even false".
But, of course, I am under the impression that you think that this kind of conversation we are engaging in is something we can talk seriously about, and not flippantly, as it it were all a big joke. And I suspect I am mistaken about that.
First, there is no such philosophy called "perspectivism". Is that your attempt to conveniently classify and dismiss? Create a straw-man and offer some (possible) obscure quote that is both moronic and irrelevent?
Like those 'isms', eh?
Sounds like some of the break down in earlier discussion is happening over the definition of existence.
Does the mere concept of an object (a mermaid in a dream) establish the object's existence? i.e. Does anything that can be imagined exist?
The answers would solve the "everything/nothing exists" disagreement, right? Feel free to comment.
Does the mere concept of an object (a mermaid in a dream) establish the object's existence? i.e. Does anything that can be imagined exist?
Well, there was nothing in the philosophical Dictionary.
Go figure.
I do not completely agree with your quoted 'category'. Whatever Nietzsche came up with, I came up with my own independently, and it only matches partially.
For instance I don't necessarily agree with the following;
this implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily propose that all perspectives are equally valid.
Although similarities exist, I do not accept your relegation to some preconceivd box for your cognitive ease.
My words stand or fall on their own merit.
If you are such that you must 'categorize/departmentalize', thats your thing, not mine.
My 'understandings' are independent of all 'schools' and prestanding edifices.
---------- Post added at 01:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 AM ----------
Yes!
Everything exists (in context)!
(Existence is context.)
That is the complete 'set'.
Any 'distinctions' made are arbitrarily Perspectival, and 'subsets' within the 'set' that everything exists!
Here is a Platonist take on it (according to my rudimentary understanding):
The word 'exist' is derived from 'ex' meaning apart from or outside; 'ist' = to be. To exist is to be this as distinct from that.
Also, all existing things are composed of parts and begin and end in time.
(In this argument, figments of your imagination do not exist.)
As distinct from 'existing things', there are fundamentals such as 'form and number'. Form and number do not exist in themselves, but without form and number, nothing would exist as everything would be chaotic.
While individual existents come and go, the forms which they take, and the 'ratio' by which they exist, precede their existence. It is not possible to determine the origin or antecedents of these forms. They are woven into the fabric of the cosmos.
Here is a Platonist take on it (according to my rudimentary understanding):
The word 'exist' is derived from 'ex' meaning apart from or outside; 'ist' = to be. To exist is to be this as distinct from that.
Also, all existing things are composed of parts and begin and end in time.
(In this argument, figments of your imagination do not exist.)
As distinct from 'existing things', there are fundamentals such as 'form and number'. Form and number do not exist in themselves, but without form and number, nothing would exist as everything would be chaotic.
While individual existents come and go, the forms which they take, and the 'ratio' by which they exist, precede their existence. It is not possible to determine the origin or antecedents of these forms. They are woven into the fabric of the cosmos.
