Philosophy Now Forum

Which of Belinda's claims are you affirming? I remember Ted Honderich describing time as the dimension of change, which has stayed with me. I think the idea of time without change is incoherent. As for space and time, I would suggest that "time" means "interval." ("Interval...

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 3:40 pmIn entanglement, two particles can be separated by light-years,...

What is there light years of, between entangled particles?

There is no "smallest number," therefore there is also no infinite regress of causes. So there is an infinite regress of numbers, therefore there is no infinite regress of causes. Numbers are placeholders for causal events, in this case. That's the "logical connection" you're lo...

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 1:39 pmEmpirically, entanglement demonstrates that space does not exist except as a convenient measure of quantity.

Really? How does it do that?

...the study of philosophy, with all its contributions to knowledge, has not been able to solve the most fundamental problems of humanity. Does this then indicate a fatal flaw in the study of philosophy? Well, as I tell anyone who will listen, philosophy is basically story telling. It's about putti...

...time only exists when there are at least two particles of matter, plus a space between them that can become time. This interstice can be a physical one or a chronological one, but if there's no such interval, then neither can we speak of their being such a things as "time," I would sug...

For you now say it has nothing to do with the infinite regress hypothesis. And I agree. Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree. Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct. Ha....

I know why you didn't answer. You don't know. I think this must have slipped your mind: Prior to Galileo... No, I remember that. I also remember answering it. No doubt with the clarity with which I remember answering your answer. There is no point you trying to argue that underdetermination is not ...

Okay. Say what sorts those are. Underdetermined questions. I know why you didn't answer. You don't know. I think this must have slipped your mind: Prior to Galileo pointing his telescope upwards, there were competing theories for how the universe worked. By studying the movement of celestial bodies...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 10:22 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 9:57 pmI am not applying underdetermination to all hypotheses, only to certain scientific and philosophical questions.

Okay. Say what sorts those are.

Underdetermined questions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 10:22 pmI only interested in the infinite regress problem.

Make your mind up.

I didn't think you were. But if you're defending epistemic relativism... I have told you that I'm not. Well, your "underdetermined" concept, when used as a catch-all for describing science, and when coupled by the claim that all the evidence counts equally for different hypotheses, would ...

... before I bother to respond to the rest of your post, can we first agree that I am not defending post modernism? I didn't think you were. But if you're defending epistemic relativism... I have told you that I'm not. ...or the view that underdetermination implies we can't have criteria for scient...

I am not applying underdetermination to all hypotheses, only to certain scientific and philosophical questions. Post modernism goes much further, too far in my opinion, by applying it to things like astrology, witchcraft and religion. Yes, those are some of the additional excesses of postmodernism,...

...underdetermination is not post modernism. "Underdetermination," when applied to all hypotheses, as you are doing, is just the marketing word for "epistemic relativism," and while it may be common today, it's also absurd. I am not applying underdetermination to all hypotheses,...

The point is that given a number of different theories that account for the evidence, there is no way to tell which, if any, is true. Well, you may not know that that is Postmodern orthodoxy (i.e. crappola) but it is. If you don't know where you got it from, that doesn't make it any different from ...