How Physics is Driving Philosophical Realism to Extinction

[Agent Smith]

I must meet Jiber!

We've had this conversation before Ackerman, Jiber doesn't exist!

Existence is an interesting idea Donald, a very interesting idea.

You've lost it bro! Jiber, there's no one that fits his description. We've searched the database ... thrice!!! We better call Dr. Dean. He should be able to clear up the matter.

I must meet Jiber!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Our inescapable subjectivity should give us reason to question the validity of what we call apparent reality, or our everyday reality.
In our subjectivity, Spinoza pointed out to us how we come to know the physical world, read apparent reality/everyday reality.
Spinoza lived in the seventeenth century and believed reality was appearance.
He pointed out that the physical world as object or objects was known to us through those objects altering our biological senses and thus, we come to know what has affected us.

Are you familiar with the Metaphysics of Spinoza?

Spinoza's philosophy has been associated with that of Leibniz and René Descartes as part of the rationalist school of thought,[87] which includes the assumption that ideas correspond to reality perfectly, in the same way that mathematics is supposed to be an exact representation of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Philosophy

Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"). For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes).
[WIKI ibid]

Spinoza had a distrust for appearances;

Spinoza, however, discounted the relevance of observational data to the discovery of truths of nature.
His conception of sense experience seems, in fact, to disqualify it from being a reliable source of information about the world altogether.
He held that sense experience, in which the human body is affected by external bodies, can NEVER provide us with adequate ideas of either external bodies or our own.

He seems moreover to have denied that the method by which we discover new truths involves either the collection of new sensory evidence or the construction of crucial experiments. Indeed, much of the early Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect is devoted to establishing that “the fictitious, the false, and the other [ideas falling short of truth] have their origin in the imagination, i.e., in certain sensations that are fortuitous, and as it were disconnected, since they do not arise from the very power of the mind, but from external causes, as the body (whether awake or dreaming) receives various motions” (EMI, ¶84). The intellect unaided by imagination, however construed, is the sole source of knowledge. Observation, which involves sensory ideas derived from external causes, has no role in the true method for acquiring adequate knowledge.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-physics/#Obs

[popeye1945]

Our inescapable subjectivity should give us reason to question the validity of what we call apparent reality, or our everyday reality.
In our subjectivity, Spinoza pointed out to us how we come to know the physical world, read apparent reality/everyday reality.
Spinoza lived in the seventeenth century and believed reality was appearance.
He pointed out that the physical world as object or objects was known to us through those objects altering our biological senses and thus, we come to know what has affected us.

Are you familiar with the Metaphysics of Spinoza?

Spinoza's philosophy has been associated with that of Leibniz and René Descartes as part of the rationalist school of thought,[87] which includes the assumption that ideas correspond to reality perfectly, in the same way that mathematics is supposed to be an exact representation of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Philosophy

Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"). For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes).
[WIKI ibid]

Spinoza had a distrust for appearances;

Spinoza, however, discounted the relevance of observational data to the discovery of truths of nature.
His conception of sense experience seems, in fact, to disqualify it from being a reliable source of information about the world altogether.
He held that sense experience, in which the human body is affected by external bodies, can NEVER provide us with adequate ideas of either external bodies or our own.

He seems moreover to have denied that the method by which we discover new truths involves either the collection of new sensory evidence or the construction of crucial experiments. Indeed, much of the early Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect is devoted to establishing that “the fictitious, the false, and the other [ideas falling short of truth] have their origin in the imagination, i.e., in certain sensations that are fortuitous, and as it were disconnected, since they do not arise from the very power of the mind, but from external causes, as the body (whether awake or dreaming) receives various motions” (EMI, ¶84). The intellect unaided by imagination, however construed, is the sole source of knowledge. Observation, which involves sensory ideas derived from external causes, has no role in the true method for acquiring adequate knowledge.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-physics/#Obs

I am impressed, I read some of Spinoza years ago and I am just getting back into his writings. I don't know as I would agree with the last statement, but perhaps I am not fully understanding it. I believe in full body consciousness; it would stand to reason that the info is processed through the understanding, so I guess I do agree after all. "The body is the mind's first idea." Great post!!

[Iwannaplato]

Spinoza lived in the seventeenth century and believed reality was appearance.
He pointed out that the physical world as object or objects was known to us through those objects altering our biological senses and thus, we come to know what has affected us.

Spinoza, however, discounted the relevance of observational data to the discovery of truths of nature.
His conception of sense experience seems, in fact, to disqualify it from being a reliable source of information about the world altogether.

It will be interesting to see if both popeye and VA are agreeing with Spinoza here. This pretty much eliminates both the accuracy and need for science and other empirical beliefs/practices. Or better put, would see science as a wrong turning away from Rationalist modes of knowledge acquisition.

[Iwannaplato]

I am impressed, I read some of Spinoza years ago and I am just getting back into his writings. I don't know as I would agree with the last statement, but perhaps I am not fully understanding it. I believe in full body consciousness; it would stand to reason that the info is processed through the understanding, so I guess I do agree after all. "The body is the mind's first idea." Great post!!

What do you think of this?

Spinoza, however, discounted the relevance of observational data to the discovery of truths of nature.
His conception of sense experience seems, in fact, to disqualify it from being a reliable source of information about the world altogether.

which is from VA's post. He also talks about the lack of need for experimentation in the same post. IOW observation and experimentation are neither necessary or effective (a type of Rationalist position). This means science is off, per se, not merely fallible.'

You go along with this?

[Flannel Jesus]

He also talks about the lack of need for experimentation in the same post. IOW observation and experimentation are neither necessary or effective (a type of Rationalist position). This means science is off, per se, not merely fallible.'

You go along with this?

Va says Spinoza believes those things, or va also believes those things?

[Iwannaplato]

He also talks about the lack of need for experimentation in the same post. IOW observation and experimentation are neither necessary or effective (a type of Rationalist position). This means science is off, per se, not merely fallible.'

You go along with this?

Va says Spinoza believes those things, or va also believes those things?

VA says that Spinoza says those things. VA's post makes no claim that Spinoza is right about part or the whole. It is an informative post. Though I'm unclear what he thinks we should do with that or Popeye should do. IOW in context it seemed like it might be support for a position one or both of them had. But whether this is true, I don't know. I asked VA about this, though he won't respond to me.

Popeye seemed to agree with Spinoza in general here, but I've asked him if this is the case.

How do they each agree/use Spinoza?

[popeye1945]

He also talks about the lack of need for experimentation in the same post. IOW observation and experimentation are neither necessary or effective (a type of Rationalist position). This means science is off, per se, not merely fallible.'

You go along with this?

Va says Spinoza believes those things, or va also believes those things?

VA says that Spinoza says those things. VA's post makes no claim that Spinoza is right about part or the whole. It is an informative post. Though I'm unclear what he thinks we should do with that or Popeye should do. IOW in context it seemed like it might be support for a position one or both of them had. But whether this is true, I don't know. I asked VA about this, though he won't respond to me.

Popeye seemed to agree with Spinoza in general here, but I've asked him if this is the case.

How do they each agree/use Spinoza?

I am unclear of what you are having difficulty with that I might explain, or not---lol!

[Iwannaplato]

Va says Spinoza believes those things, or va also believes those things?

VA says that Spinoza says those things. VA's post makes no claim that Spinoza is right about part or the whole. It is an informative post. Though I'm unclear what he thinks we should do with that or Popeye should do. IOW in context it seemed like it might be support for a position one or both of them had. But whether this is true, I don't know. I asked VA about this, though he won't respond to me.

Popeye seemed to agree with Spinoza in general here, but I've asked him if this is the case.

How do they each agree/use Spinoza?

I am unclear of what you are having difficulty with that I might explain, or not---lol!

Spinoza is a rationalist - we find knowledge by contemplating - and not an Empiricist. Within what VA sent to you, you can see that Spinoza is against learning empirically and against experimentation as a way to get knowledge. IOW he is against science. You responded positively to what VA showed you of Spinoza's thinking. It might not be those parts, but, well, are you against science? Are you a rationalist? Do you see empiricism and empirical study as fruitless?

[Flannel Jesus]

Spinoza is a rationalist - we find knowledge by contemplating - and not an Empiricist. Within what VA sent to you, you can see that Spinoza is against learning empirically and against experimentation as a way to get knowledge. IOW he is against science.

The only thinkers I've personally spoken to who believe this sort of thing are James S Saint and his followers at ilp. He believed that one could deduce the nature of reality, and scientific truths, using logic alone. One need not even open their eyes, in theory, to come to a perfect understanding of physics and everything that entails.

Seems very, very unlikely to me that our existence is logically deducible like that.

[Iwannaplato]

The only thinkers I've personally spoken to who believe this sort of thing are James S Saint and his followers at ilp. He believed that one could deduce the nature of reality, and scientific truths, using logic alone. One need not even open their eyes, in theory, to come to a perfect understanding of physics and everything that entails.

Seems very, very unlikely to me that our existence is logically deducible like that.

Personally I don't rule out that we can do this, though I assume some would be better than others, and there would also be differences in different fields. But I do believe we can learn things from experience and experiments, so....?

But I would find it strange if popeye and VA believe what Spinoza asserts on these things, or at least what VA attributes to him in the first post. Not because it would mean they are wrong. But they both seem to rely on science: cite it, bolster positions based on it, refer to knowledge that has come out of science, without mentioning science. So, that's my main point. I'm not critical of Spinoza there, right now. Nor am I supporting him. I found the exchange odd. Popeye reacted with a general very positive opinion Spinoza where a very clearly anti-empiricist position was put forward. But quite a bit was put forward, and perhaps it was only those other things.

Unfortunately VA will never answer me. Perhaps popeye will and make a clear stand for or against Spinoza's anti-empiricist stanve. Or some kind of third position, I don't know.

[Flannel Jesus]

Personally I don't rule out that we can do this, though I assume some would be better than others, and there would also be differences in different fields.

I do rule it out for one reason, which I can explain in two words:

Turing completeness

But, more words are probably necessary to make clear what I'm saying so I'll lay them out in more detail:

Turing complete systems are capable, in principle, of computing anything any other Turing complete system is capable of computing (correct me if I've got that wrong). That suggests that, in principle, there may be many ways to get a universe that *looks like ours*, and there may be many many different types of universes that have intelligence in them.

If that's true, and I very strongly think it is, one would need empirical evidence to narrow down which of those universes we have actually found ourselves in. They're all logically possible, but they aren't all what we have here.

[Iwannaplato]

Personally I don't rule out that we can do this, though I assume some would be better than others, and there would also be differences in different fields.

I do rule it out for one reason, which I can explain in two words:

Turing completeness

But, more words are probably necessary to make clear what I'm saying so I'll lay them out in more detail:

Turing complete systems are capable, in principle, of computing anything any other Turing complete system is capable of computing (correct me if I've got that wrong). That suggests that, in principle, there may be many ways to get a universe that *looks like ours*, and there may be many many different types of universes that have intelligence in them.

If that's true, and I very strongly think it is, one would need empirical evidence to narrow down which of those universes we have actually found ourselves in. They're all logically possible, but they aren't all what we have here.

I think I understand. My position is not that we don't need empirical learning. My position is that I don't rule out that we can gain knowledge in the Rationalist way of gaining it. It may not be infallible, but neither is empirical learning. Spinoza, according to what VA cited, is anti-empiricist. We don't need any learning by experience, in fact it is useless. That's not my position, at all. I am just not ruling out rationalist ways to knowledge.

And in fact, there's problems with thinking one has only used empirical processes. But that's a big process to make a good case for, and I feel lazy right now.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think I understand. My position is not that we don't need empirical learning. My position is that I don't rule out that we can gain knowledge in the Rationalist way of gaining it.

I think we can too. The entire field of mathematics is precisely that. They make the extra claim, not that we can gain some knowledge, but that we can gain ALL knowledge through those means. I think that's not possible, for the above stated reasons.

[Iwannaplato]

I think I understand. My position is not that we don't need empirical learning. My position is that I don't rule out that we can gain knowledge in the Rationalist way of gaining it.

I think we can too. The entire field of mathematics is precisely that. They make the extra claim, not that we can gain some knowledge, but that we can gain ALL knowledge through those means. I think that's not possible, for the above stated reasons.

My writing earlier was unclear. I don't agree with Spinoza's binary position nor his rulling out empiricism.