Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

[uwot]

...if gravity is a separate phenomenon to time, then it seems safe to ignore it for epistemic purposes, right?

Gravity is epistemic. It is simply the very well supported hypothesis that something makes heavier than air objects fall earthwards and celestial bodies move in particular ways. The causal ontology responsible for the phenomenon is not fully understood and for practical purposes doesn't matter, but good luck if you are working on a theory that ignores heavier than air objects falling earthwards.

The consequences (predictions) come from computing the ontology which is EXPRESSED in Mathematics.

Absolutely and as you, like Newton, clearly appreciate, you don't even need an ontology.

Einstein's description of the spacetime geometry/ontology is Mathematical.
But Einstein was only an epistemologist. How does this work?

For the simple reason that Einstein, who came up with the ontology of spacetime, as in it being a physical stuff rather than the mathematical and purely epistemic object of Minkowski, wasn't only an epistemologist.

The ontology/epistemology distinction does not exist in the mind of an epistemologist. It's all language!

Well, to some of us there's things which are true and how to find out what they are.

So, no wiki page for 'time field'? Perhaps you could point us to some paper that has used the concept.

And that's what I am working on. Formalising what I know about time-fields from distributed/transactional systems in computer science.

Again, good luck, but what is a time field outside of computer science?

[Averroes]

Hi forum members. This is a post to address the following statement that was said of me:

I think what made you embrace Islam was the requirement for being so devout, you were a devout Christian but that wasn't enough.

I was not a devout Christian, I was very weak in my faith and made a lot of mistakes. I easily admit that Newton was a far devout Christian that any Christian I have known. In my view, Newton is a great example of an uncompromising believer in the Oneness of God, the Almighty.

If we consider his story, we see that he could have signed the allegiance to the trinity and earn the honours of this world. He had not declared publicly his rejection of trinity but only privately to his close circle of acquaintances for example John Lock among others. Of course, at that time rejecting the trinity not only meant lost of a job position but he could have lost his life in agonizing pain as well! Newton was born in the same year Galileo died. So, the story of Galileo was not far from him in time and Galileo had not even denied the fundamental creed on which trinitarian Christianity relies upon! Newton would in all likelihood have been tortured if he had publicly rejected trinity. And like Galileo before him, he could have been sentenced to death by the Church while he was right. Just research how traitors to the Crown were treated in medieval England and you will not want to mess with them! This has just been completely abolished in this century!

Anyway, nearly nobody knew about it, so it is thinkable that Newton could just have pretended allegiance to the trinity and earn the honours at Cambridge. But, once the truth became clear to him, he did not comprise his belief in God the Almighty  by paying allegiance to what for him was rightly "the greatest sin" in the concept of the trinity. Instead, he waited for many years to receive an exemption! He would have abandoned the position had he not received the exemption. This is the kind of commitment that few have and that deserves great respect in my judgement.

Anyway, I was far from being a devout Christian but I loved the Lord, God the Almighty for sure and I loved those whom He loved. In my early teenage years, as I said, I read the Book of Job much. I loved that prophet of God, the Almighty. I still remember reading a verse which has greatly impacted me and still today. It is a conversation between God, the Almighty and satan, the cursed. It reads as follows:

• Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." (Book of Job 1:8)

In my teenage mind, I remember that this struck me as a marvellous verse. I  remember wishing that the Lord would be pleased with me like He was with Prophet Job(pbuh). It's in us, we can't help but want our Creator, the Almighty to be pleased with us His creation. We are programmed like that since our birth. The latter topic was previously addressed in this thread itself.
And in the Holy Quran, Allah,  the Almighty is still praising Prophet Job(pbuh) :

• And remember Our servant Job, when he called to his Lord, "Indeed, Satan has touched me with hardship and torment."
  [So he was told], "Strike [the ground] with your foot; this is a [spring for] a cool bath and drink."
  And We granted him his family and a like [number] with them as mercy from Us and a reminder for those of understanding.
  [We said], "And take in your hand a bunch [of grass] and strike with it and do not break your oath." Indeed, We found him patient, an excellent servant. Indeed, he was one repeatedly turning back [to Allah ]. (Quran 38:41-44,  interpretation of meaning)

For me this is the greatest achievement,  to succeed in pleasing the Lord, God the Almighty by doing good deeds and warding off evil. I just think to myself: the Lord is Self-Subsisting,  He has no need, He is the Almighty,  He is Perfect,  He is the King of Kings and yet He has given man the ability to please Him by doing good deeds. And Prophet Job(pbuh) succeeded with distinction to please the Lord, God the Almighty and defeating all the plots of satan, the cursed. Prophet Abraham(pbuh) did the same and prophet Jesus (pbuh) as well. And no doubt Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as well, who established the religion of God the Almighty on earth for billions seeking to please the Lord as well.

A great many of us want to please the Lord our Creator, but many of us have been misled by trinitarian Christianity. Newton was a rare exceptional genius, and by the beautiful mind that he was given by his Creator, he was able to work out by himself that trinity was the greatest sin. Comparatively, I am much more modest in abilities, and if the Muslims had not directed my research on these religious matters then I would still be doing the greatest of sins.

I do not know about the intellectual abilities of all of you here. Some might be really gifted. But most of us are like me of average abilities. So I think to myself, short of being as gifted as Newton and company,  if we were to put all our collective average intelligences together supporting and helping each other in the path of God, the Almighty,  can't we hope of achieving what prophet Job(pbuh) and all the prophets(pbut) achieved,  namely the pleasure of our Creator the Almighty? I believe we can do that, if Allah wills. Many smalls can make a big, if Allah the Almighty wills.

Satan, the cursed is an avowed enemy to all the sons of Adam. If we now continue fighting each other, then the enemy has won. Only the allies of satan, the cursed will want that. We, the worshippers of the true God, do not want that to happen.

That is why I am proposing to anyone who wants to, to join me in rejecting all false deities and accepting to worship God, the Almighty alone. In this way, it is my hope that God, the Almighty, if He wills, might coordinate our collective little efforts to fight our common enemy satan, the cursed.

Have a nice Sunday and take care of yourselves forum members.

[Skepdick]

Gravity is epistemic. It is simply the very well supported hypothesis that something makes heavier than air objects fall earthwards and celestial bodies move in particular ways. The causal ontology responsible for the phenomenon is not fully understood and for practical purposes doesn't matter, but good luck if you are working on a theory that ignores heavier than air objects falling earthwards.

You are missing the point. Ontology is epistemology. The distinction is only philosophical, not practical.

If gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, then the curvature of spacetime is your ontology.
The geometry of ontological spacetime is expressed in Mathematics. Field equations.

Absolutely and as you, like Newton, clearly appreciate, you don't even need an ontology.

Uh. Of course you need an ontology. You can't compute any consequences without one.

This is an ontological statement: F = G*m1*m2/r*r

∃ F

For the simple reason that Einstein, who came up with the ontology of spacetime, as in it being a physical stuff rather than the mathematical, and purely epistemic object of Minkowski, wasn't only an epistemologist.

The field equations (Minkowski spaces) are ontological and they are mathematical objects. Projecting this model onto reality works - it predicts stuff. We are still in the realm of epistemology though.

So we are arguing whether Einstein was at leat an epistemologist, or only an epistemologist.

I've never met any actual ontologists. Those who have access to actual noumena. Have you?

Well, to some of us there's things which are true and how to find out what they are.

You don't know what truth is. Projecting the field equations onto reality makes accurate predictions. That's all that we can say.

Truth doesn't feature.

Again, good luck, but what is a time field outside of computer science?

It's the same thing as any ontological field. A mathematical object.

[attofishpi]

Satan, the cursed is an avowed enemy to all the sons of Adam. If we now continue fighting each other, then the enemy has won. Only the allies of satan, the cursed will want that. We, the worshippers of the true God, do not want that to happen.

That is why I am proposing to anyone who wants to, to join me in rejecting all false deities and accepting to worship God, the Almighty alone. In this way, it is my hope that God, the Almighty, if He wills, might coordinate our collective little efforts to fight our common enemy satan, the cursed.

What have you got against this Satan chap?

What has he ever done to anyone? - is there any actual account in the bible of anything terrible this poor old fellow has done?

[uwot]

Gravity is epistemic. It is simply the very well supported hypothesis that something makes heavier than air objects fall earthwards and celestial bodies move in particular ways. The causal ontology responsible for the phenomenon is not fully understood and for practical purposes doesn't matter, but good luck if you are working on a theory that ignores heavier than air objects falling earthwards.

You are missing the point.

No sir, I am disagreeing with you.

Ontology is epistemology.

It is generally accepted that ontology is about what exists and epistemology is about how you know.

The distinction is only philosophical, not practical.

I know. Have another look at the bit in bold above.

If gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, then the curvature of spacetime is your ontology.

Exactly!

The geometry of ontological spacetime is expressed in Mathematics. Field equations.

Spacetime is ontology. Field equations are epistemology.

Uh. Of course you need an ontology. You can't compute any consequences without one.

This is an ontological statement: F = G*m1*m2/r*r

∃ F

The point I was making is that there is no ontology that explains Newton's law, unlike Einstein's for which as you yourself said: "the curvature of spacetime is your ontology."

I've never met any actual ontologists.

You should get out more.

Those who have access to actual noumena. Have you?

I have met string theorists, but I have never met one who has access to them.

You don't know what truth is. Projecting the field equations onto reality makes accurate predictions. That's all that we can say.

Truth doesn't feature.

Again, read the bit in bold.

Again, good luck, but what is a time field outside of computer science?

It's the same thing as any ontological field. A mathematical object.

Well look, if that's how you want to define ontology, be my guest; I have also met mathematical realists who would agree with you, but within the philosophy of science, ontology is generally limited to things that have mechanical characteristics i.e. they exist in some physical form.

[Skepdick]

No sir, I am disagreeing with you.

Naturally. That's your philosophical bias.

It is generally accepted that ontology is about what exists and epistemology is about how you know.

That doesn't preclude the generally-accepted view from being wrong.

Spacetime exists. It's a geometry described by the field equations.
Having a mathematical description of spacetime (e.g a concept) in your head is ontological knowledge, is it not? The question of "how" is moot.

Is "ontological knowledge" the domain of ontology or epistemology? Good ol' Russel's paradox... is the set of all sets a member of itself?

If gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, then the curvature of spacetime is your ontology.

Exactly!

Then it seems you are agreeing with me - ontology is part of epistemology?

Spacetime is ontology

Distinction without a difference. Erased trivially with the epistemic question (by your own admission): How do you know?

Field equations are epistemology.

When the ontology/epistemology distinction is removed the field equations are spacetime.

The point I was making is that there is no ontology that explains Newton's law, unlike Einstein's for which as you yourself said: "the curvature of spacetime is your ontology."

Ontology is about "what exists", is it not?

Gravitational Forces exist. For Newton, that's an ontological statement, captured by F = G*m1*m2/r*r
Spacetime exists. For Einstein that's an ontological statement. Captured by the field equations.

You should get out more.

I do. Amongst the 8 billion people on this planet, there isn't a single ontologist.
There are epistemologists who project their ontologies though...

I have met string theorists, but I have never met one who has access to them.

I've met Newtonians who don't have access to forces.
I've met Relativists who don't have access to spacetime.

Come to think of it - you fit that bill.

Well look, if that's how you want to define ontology, be my guest; I have also met mathematical realists

I am whatever I am. I do epistemology. Philosophical classifications are not even wrong.

Mathematics is tool for constructing ontological models. They work or they don't. The adjective "real" serves no purpose.

who would agree with you, but within the philosophy of science, ontology is generally limited to things that have mechanical characteristics i.e. they exist in some physical form.

Curved spacetime has mechanical characteristics. They are captured in the field equations.

[attofishpi]

Satan, the cursed is an avowed enemy to all the sons of Adam. If we now continue fighting each other, then the enemy has won. Only the allies of satan, the cursed will want that. We, the worshippers of the true God, do not want that to happen.

That is why I am proposing to anyone who wants to, to join me in rejecting all false deities and accepting to worship God, the Almighty alone. In this way, it is my hope that God, the Almighty, if He wills, might coordinate our collective little efforts to fight our common enemy satan, the cursed.

What have you got against this Satan chap?

What has he ever done to anyone? - is there any actual account in the bible of anything terrible this poor old fellow has done?

Further to this - don't U think God has revealed itself as more of a curse to humanity than this poor chap Satan over the years?

I awoke with semen all over me this morning Averroes, problem is, there is NO water since we here R in a drought. So I cannot bathe myself and become clean for the SIN of blowing my load over my belly. R U really that simple?

I will certainly FUND A MENTAL LIST - U R now officially added.

I feel deeply sorry 4 U and ALL your ilk. Satan!!!!! ooooo nooooo God is soooo weak and so R we humans!!!! BIG BAD SATAN!!!!



You could never even amount to a SAP - U could never actually feed the Tree of Knowledge ...because all U have is short sighted belief based on words written by men with ALL their bias about what God should actually be.

SAP BARK up the TREE of knowledge LEAVE.

Jews to the left of me...Muslims to the right and here I am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jFGjC2MpUU

[uwot]

No sir, I am disagreeing with you.

Naturally. That's your philosophical bias.

Well you can call the distinction between ontology and epistemology that I perceive bias, if you wish.

It is generally accepted that ontology is about what exists and epistemology is about how you know.

That doesn't preclude the generally-accepted view from being wrong.

It's utility. If philosophers of science feel there is a useful distinction to be made between ontology and epistemology, I say let them.

Spacetime exists.

We don't know if that is true in the sense that philosophers of science view ontology.

It's a geometry described by the field equations.
Having a mathematical description of spacetime (e.g a concept) in your head is ontological knowledge, is it not?

Not according to my use of ontological.

Is "ontological knowledge" the domain of ontology or epistemology?

Well now, ontological knowledge is very limited, everything being theory-laden and all that; certainly spacetime doesn't cut the mustard.

Spacetime is ontology

Distinction without a difference. Erased trivially with the epistemic question (by your own admission): How do you know?

I don't; it's an ontological hypothesis.

The point I was making is that there is no ontology that explains Newton's law, unlike Einstein's for which as you yourself said: "the curvature of spacetime is your ontology."

Ontology is about "what exists", is it not?

Only if the generally accepted view isn't wrong.

I am whatever I am. I do epistemology. Philosophical classifications are not even wrong.

That's not what you said above.

Curved spacetime has mechanical characteristics. They are captured in the field equations.

Assuming spacetime is real.

[Skepdick]

Well you can call the distinction between ontology and epistemology that I perceive bias, if you wish.

That's not what I am calling a "bias". The philosophical tendency for disagreement is the bias.
The distinction between ontology and epistemology is what I am calling "distinction without a difference".

It's utility. If philosophers of science feel there is a useful distinction to be made between ontology and epistemology, I say let them.

And if applied scientists feel there is a useful amalgamation to be made by merging ontology and epistemology, I say let them.

We don't know if that is true in the sense that philosophers of science view ontology.

You don't know if it's false either, so what yo do you know about spacetime then?
And if the answer is "nothing" - then how are you still talking about it?

Not according to my use of ontological.

According to your use of 'ontological', would you say that knowledge exist?

Well now, ontological knowledge is very limited, everything being theory-laden and all that; certainly spacetime doesn't cut the mustard.

Limited is not the same as non-existent.... So the statement "ontological knowledge exists" is true (according to you).

Is "ontological knowledge" the domain of ontology or epistemology?

I don't; it's an ontological hypothesis.

Not an epistemic one?

Only if the generally accepted view isn't wrong.

How would you determine if it's right or wrong without espitemology?

That's not what you said above.

No matter. I mean the same thing.

Assuming spacetime is real.

How would you determine whether that's the case without epistemology?

[uwot]

Well you can call the distinction between ontology and epistemology that I perceive bias, if you wish.

That's not what I am calling a "bias". The philosophical tendency for disagreement is the bias.

I don't care what you call bias, nor do I care if you call the philosophical tendency 'disagreement'. Personally, I think 'challenge' is more appropriate and, yep, that matters in my view. Without challenge, dogma and stupidity wins.

The distinction between ontology and epistemology is what I am calling "distinction without a difference".

Call it what you will. I can only point out the difference, I cannot furnish you with the intellect to appreciate it.

...if applied scientists feel there is a useful amalgamation to be made by merging ontology and epistemology, I say let them.

Absolutely, but I don't know of any citable scientist that couldn't tell the difference. My guess is that nor do you, but I'm happy to be corrected.

We don't know if that is true in the sense that philosophers of science view ontology.

You don't know if it's false either...

Kinda goes without saying.

...so what yo do you know about spacetime then?

The usual stuff; that it is an ontological hypothesis, which serves as the model for the most accurate description of the way massive bodies interact without coming into contact we currently have.

And if the answer is "nothing" - then how are you still talking about it?

Well, the answer isn't "nothing".

Not according to my use of ontological.

According to your use of 'ontological', would you say that knowledge exist?

Karl Popper had an interesting take on this. Being a philosopher of science, he broadly accepted the consensual view that 'real' means something along the lines of 'able to influence the physical realm'. As he pointed out, knowledge when applied can change the physical world and it therefore exists. You can also make a very good case that knowledge is reducible to brain states and therefore exists in the physical realm. But then you get into issues like does red exist? Clearly it corresponds to a physical state of human brains, but does it exist independently?

So the statement "ontological knowledge exists" is true (according to you).

Well, given my philosophical bias I would challenge that.

Is "ontological knowledge" the domain of ontology or epistemology?

Tell ya what Skepdick, give me an example of something you call "ontological knowledge", and I'll tell you exactly where I think it rests.

That's not what you said above.

No matter. I mean the same thing.

Ah, so you can flatly contradict yourself and remain consistent. Handy.

Assuming spacetime is real.

How would you determine whether that's the case without epistemology?

You tell me, I'm not the one saying there's no useful distinction between epistemology and ontology.

[Skepdick]

Personally, I think 'challenge' is more appropriate and, yep, that matters in my view. Without challenge, dogma and stupidity wins.

That is an interesting perspective. Would you say that it is inherently dogmatic?

Say, towards the objective of defeating stupidity - could there some some alternative, game-theoretic strategy that works better than your current one?

I dunno, say... focusing on teaching people HOW to think, instead of teaching them WHAT to think?

Call it what you will. I can only point out the difference, I cannot furnish you with the intellect to appreciate it.

Any fool can draw a distinction. I can only point out that the distinction is only linguistic/epistemic, not ontological. I cannot furnish you with the intellect to appreciate computational linguistics.

Absolutely, but I don't know of any citable scientist that couldn't tell the difference. My guess is that nor do you, but I'm happy to be corrected.

Every scientist can tell the linguistic/conceptual difference. Every epistemologist collapses it when performing experiments.

To use the GR ontology in QFT would be, trivially put, an error.

Kinda goes without saying.

"We don't know if it's true" goes without saying also. And yet...

The usual stuff; that it is an ontological hypothesis, which serves as the model for the most accurate description of the way massive bodies interact without coming into contact we currently have.

But you know about it. So it's epistemic.

Well, the answer isn't "nothing".

So you know what the answer isn't... That's epistemic.

Karl Popper had an interesting take on this. Being a philosopher of science, he broadly accepted the consensual view that 'real' means something along the lines of 'able to influence the physical realm'.

He came so close! But then he drew a distinction between "real" and "physical realm". Where does the. "real ream" start and the "physical realm" end exactly?

Well, given my philosophical bias I would challenge that.

For the sake of dogmatism, of is there some other purpose?

Tell ya what Skepdick, give me an example of something you call "ontological knowledge", and I'll tell you exactly where I think it rests.

All that stuff you know about ontological spacetime.

Ah, so you can flatly contradict yourself and remain consistent. Handy.

I have stated this upon numerous occasions in many different ways.

I am consistently inconsistent. Is that consistency or inconsistency? I can't tell.

But the truth of the matter is far simpler. I am not dogmatic with respect to logic.

And so "we must challenge dogma, else stupidity wins". And so I challenge Logicism.

You tell me, I'm not the one saying there's no useful distinction between epistemology and ontology.

I've told you already. If your epistemic model produces testable consequences and they work, then the epistemology/ontology distinction is unnecessary.

[uwot]

Personally, I think 'challenge' is more appropriate and, yep, that matters in my view. Without challenge, dogma and stupidity wins.

That is an interesting perspective. Would you say that it is inherently dogmatic?

Yup, in my view always challenge anyone claiming to be an authority.

Say, towards the objective of defeating stupidity - could there some some alternative, game-theoretic strategy that works better than your current one?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I dunno, say... focusing on teaching people HOW to think, instead of teaching them WHAT to think?

You mean like not carpet-bombing your interlocutors with wiki pages?

Call it what you will. I can only point out the difference, I cannot furnish you with the intellect to appreciate it.

Any fool can draw a distinction. I can only point out that the distinction is only linguistic/epistemic, not ontological. I cannot furnish you with the intellect to appreciate computational linguistics.

Well again, I can only point out the difference between ontology and epistemology.

Absolutely, but I don't know of any citable scientist that couldn't tell the difference. My guess is that nor do you, but I'm happy to be corrected.

Every scientist can tell the linguistic/conceptual difference. Every epistemologist collapses it when performing experiments.

They don't collapse it, they simply ignore it.

To use the GR ontology in QFT would be, trivially put, an error.

Well yeah, but personally, I don't think it is an error to posit an ontology that works for both.

"We don't know if it's true" goes without saying also. And yet...

The usual stuff; that it is an ontological hypothesis, which serves as the model for the most accurate description of the way massive bodies interact without coming into contact we currently have.

But you know about it. So it's epistemic.

Yup, I know about it, but I don't know if spacetime obtains.

Well, the answer isn't "nothing".

So you know what the answer isn't... That's epistemic.

It's just knowing. Epistemology is about how you know.

Karl Popper had an interesting take on this. Being a philosopher of science, he broadly accepted the consensual view that 'real' means something along the lines of 'able to influence the physical realm'.

He came so close! But then he drew a distinction between "real" and "physical realm". Where does the. "real ream" start and the "physical realm" end exactly?

Good question, but as I am not a Popperian, I feel no compulsion to answer in that context.

Well, given my philosophical bias I would challenge that.

For the sake of dogmatism, of is there some other purpose?

From your archly epistemic point of view, what difference would it make?

Tell ya what Skepdick, give me an example of something you call "ontological knowledge", and I'll tell you exactly where I think it rests.

All that stuff you know about ontological spacetime.

If you had been paying attention, yer might have noticed that I have made it clear that I don't believe in ontological knowledge about spacetime.

Ah, so you can flatly contradict yourself and remain consistent. Handy.

I have stated this upon numerous occasions in many different ways.
I am consistently inconsistent. Is that consistency or inconsistency? I can't tell.

I dare say Skepdick, you apparently make it a badge of honour that you can't tell your arse from your elbow.

But the truth of the matter is far simpler. I am not dogmatic with respect to logic.
And so "we must challenge dogma, else stupidity wins". And so I challenge Logicism.

Good for you. Tell me Skepdick (lately of Logick) do you challenge people who actually defend logicism?

I've told you already. If your epistemic model produces testable consequences and they work, then the epistemology/ontology distinction is unnecessary.

And I have already told you that I know for epistemic purposes, ontology is irrelevant. I think you should ask yourself, what is so wrong with you that you must disagree with people, even when they agree with you?

[Skepdick]

Yup, in my view always challenge anyone claiming to be an authority.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Who decides whether it's broke and how?

You mean like not carpet-bombing your interlocutors with wiki pages?

Why do you interpret that as a WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think?

Well again, I can only point out the difference between ontology and epistemology.

And I can challenge the necessity of such a distinction. You know... to avoid dogma.

They don't collapse it, they simply ignore it.

Distinction without a difference

Well yeah, but personally, I don't think it is an error to posit an ontology that works for both.

Well, we could pretend like "spacetime" as an ontology exists in both GR and QFT, but we would be lying now, wouldn't we?

The same word (spacetime) is conceptualised radically differently in both theories.

In QFT spacetime is really space (read: memory) AND time. Computational resources.

Yup, I know about it, but I don't know if spacetime obtains.

What's your epistemic criterion for it "obtaining"?

It's just knowing. Epistemology is about how you know.

No it isn't. Epistemology is about knowledge/knowing in general.

A particularist asks "What do you know?" before "How you know?"
A methodists asks "How do you know?" before "What do you know?"

I don't want to spam you with wikipedia articles, but come on... it says so right here

Good question, but as I am not a Popperian, I feel no compulsion to answer in that context.

So which parts of Poperianism have you abandoned; and which have you adopted?

From your archly epistemic point of view, what difference would it make?

It would help me synthesize a hypothesis for which I've been unable to collect any evidence whatsoever.

If you had been paying attention, yer might have noticed that I have made it clear that I don't believe in ontological knowledge about spacetime.

I am not sure what it even means to "believe" or "not believe" in ontological knowledge about spacetime. You clearly know what spacetime is. You can say things about it. Spacetime is an ontology. There exists (in the contents of your head) ontological knowledge.

Before you get too far distracted, let me remind you why this is relevant. The original question was this:

Is ontological knowledge in the realm of ontology or epistemology?

Having given you a particular example of ontological knowledge (your own knowledge about spacetime) - please categorise it for me.

I dare say Skepdick, you apparently make it a badge of honour that you can't tell your arse from your elbow.

Assess and elbows are not abstract entities. Contradictions are.

Good for you. Tell me Skepdick (lately of Logick) do you challenge people who actually defend logicism?

Why do you think I am on a Philosophy forum? That's where all the Logicists gather!

And I have already told you that I know for epistemic purposes, ontology is irrelevant. I think you should ask yourself, what is so wrong with you that you must disagree with people, even when they agree with you?

Because that was never the point I was making? The point that I am making (and still am attempting to make)

That for any and all purpose ontology is always an epistemic activity.

[uwot]

Well again, I can only point out the difference between ontology and epistemology.

And I can challenge the necessity of such a distinction. You know... to avoid dogma.

Good for you! Welcome to philosophy.

Yup, I know about it, but I don't know if spacetime obtains.

What's your epistemic criterion for it "obtaining"?

I imagine it is very similar to whatever criteria you apply when you say this:

Assess and elbows are not abstract entities. Contradictions are.

Before you get too far distracted, let me remind you why this is relevant. The original question was this:

Is ontological knowledge in the realm of ontology or epistemology?

Well call me dogmatic, but for me the distinction between what exists and how you know works so well that I see no reason to abandon it.

Having given you a particular example of ontological knowledge (your own knowledge about spacetime) - please categorise it for me.

Once again:

If you had been paying attention, yer might have noticed that I have made it clear that I don't believe in ontological knowledge about spacetime.

The point that I am making (and still am attempting to make)

That for any and all purpose ontology is always an epistemic activity.

I get the point, I just happen to disagree with it.

[Skepdick]

Good for you! Welcome to philosophy.

I am challenging philosophy, I am not trying to become a member.

I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member...

I imagine it is very similar to whatever criteria you apply when you say this:

Assess and elbows are not abstract entities. Contradictions are.

What I am applying is synthesis, not a criterion. Drawing distinctions, collapsing them - information emerges.

Well call me dogmatic, but for me the distinction between what exists and how you know works so well that I see no reason to abandon it.

I am not asking you to abandon it - only to classify it.

If you had been paying attention, yer might have noticed that I have made it clear that I don't believe in ontological knowledge about spacetime.

You don't have to "believe" in it. Possession is sufficient for you to attempt to classify it.

I get the point, I just happen to disagree with it.

Your disagreement is failing to obtain.