Atla: Direct vs Indirection Perception, Noumena

[Skepdick]

I'm trying to mirror his own behaviour, looks like nothing drives him up the wall more.

(These funny little debates don't matter, I "won" against him years ago after our first few comments and nothing changed since.)

It's not like we didn't know you don't give a shit about philosophy

You are just here to piss people off.

Well whatever you and VA are doing, I don't consider that philosophy. I figured out that shit when I was like 12.

Ohhh! Congratulations on your 12th birthday!

When was that? Last week?

[Atla]

It's not like we didn't know you don't give a shit about philosophy

You are just here to piss people off.

Well whatever you and VA are doing, I don't consider that philosophy. I figured out that shit when I was like 12.

Ohhh! Congratulations on your 12th birthday!

When was that? Last week?

Low-level philosophy isn't worth talking about, it's just trivial, either you can solve it or not.

High-level philosophy also isn't worth talking about, as somewhere far above your head, philosophy probably takes a very dark turn. Luckily almost no one makes it to that level.

So what's left is middle-level philosophy, mainly for entertainment purposes.

[Skepdick]

Well whatever you and VA are doing, I don't consider that philosophy. I figured out that shit when I was like 12.

Ohhh! Congratulations on your 12th birthday!

When was that? Last week?

Low-level philosophy isn't worth talking about, it's just trivial, either you can solve it or not.

High-level philosophy also isn't worth talking about, as somewhere far above your head, philosophy probably takes a very dark turn. Luckily almost no one makes it to that level.

So what's left is middle-level philosophy, mainly for entertainment purposes.

Low leve, high level, intermediate level, or infinite level. Analytic philosophy is now subsumed by the formal sciences.

Whatever you think is left is also worth asking: Why do it? What value does it add and to whom?

[Gary Childress]

Ohhh! Congratulations on your 12th birthday!

When was that? Last week?

Low-level philosophy isn't worth talking about, it's just trivial, either you can solve it or not.

High-level philosophy also isn't worth talking about, as somewhere far above your head, philosophy probably takes a very dark turn. Luckily almost no one makes it to that level.

So what's left is middle-level philosophy, mainly for entertainment purposes.

Low leve, high level, intermediate level, or infinite level. Analytic philosophy is now subsumed by the formal sciences.

Whatever you think is left is also worth asking: Why do it? What value does it add and to whom?

The level of philosophy depends upon the level one is devoted to. The lowest level philosophy is dedicated to the preservation of inorganic rocks and minerals. After that comes whatever isn't sentient. After that comes whatever you don't want to retaliate against you. After that it's much more difficult to say.

EDIT: Perhaps the highest level of philosophy is if you have no fear, maybe? If that's the case, then it depends upon what you've been trained all your life to do fearlessly that becomes important.

[Atla]

Ohhh! Congratulations on your 12th birthday!

When was that? Last week?

Low-level philosophy isn't worth talking about, it's just trivial, either you can solve it or not.

High-level philosophy also isn't worth talking about, as somewhere far above your head, philosophy probably takes a very dark turn. Luckily almost no one makes it to that level.

So what's left is middle-level philosophy, mainly for entertainment purposes.

Low leve, high level, intermediate level, or infinite level. Analytic philosophy is now subsumed by the formal sciences.

Whatever you think is left is also worth asking: Why do it? What value does it add and to whom?

Well philosophy can sometimes help people see more clearly, which can be beneficial.

[Gary Childress]

Instead of all the pesticides, maybe we could hire more people?

[Gary Childress]

We'd best hope we don't come across one of these. It might be better to make peace with it, unless we want to exterminate that too. But what comes around goes around, perhaps?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I belief this discussion is valid within this thread.

Of course they support my point. Whatever models we create / are trapped in, and wherever these models lead us, has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of objective reality.

I suggest you read the book to get the point else you are standing on quicksand.

Here are more points to support my stance;

Hawking rejecting objective reality;

Physics and Goedel
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strin ... c/hawking/
Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover.
Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon.
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles.
I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.

From the book;

3. If a goldfish formulated such a theory, we would have to admit the goldfish’s view as a valid picture of reality. C3

4. So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.

5. These examples bring us to a conclusion that will be important in this book: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. C1

Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.


Realism difficult to defend.

6. But his act did illustrate the view of philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), who wrote that although we have no rational grounds for believing in an objective reality, we also have no choice but to act as if it is true.

7. But this wave/particle duality—the idea that an object could be described as either a particle or a wave—is as foreign to everyday experience as is the idea that you can drink a chunk of sandstone.
8. In that view, the universe does not have just a single existence or history, but rather every possible version of the universe exists simultaneously in what is called a quantum superposition.

9. Quantum physics provides a framework for understanding how nature operates on atomic and subatomic scales, but as we’ll see in more detail later, it dictates a completely different conceptual schema, one in which an object’s position, path, and even its past and future are not precisely determined.
- Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can. Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes.
Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
- But quantum physics agrees with observation. It has never failed a test, and it has been tested more than any other theory in science. Chap 4
-That is, quantum physics recognizes that to make an observation, you must interact with the object you are observing. Chap 4

The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole. In this picture space-time has no boundary—the same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. C6
The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don’t have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us. C6
The idea that the universe does not have a unique observer-independent history might seem to conflict with certain facts we know. C6

-Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can. c8
-Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. c8



- M-theory is the most general super-symmetric theory of gravity.
For these reasons M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe.
-Free will: Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.
-In the case of people, since we cannot solve the equations that determine our behavior, we use the effective theory that people have free will.
-Some people claim that self-awareness is something unique to humans.
It gives them free will, the ability to choose between different courses of action.
How can one tell if a being has free will? We would therefore have to say that any complex being has free will—not as a fundamental feature, but as an effective theory, an admission of our inability to do the calculations that would enable us to predict its actions.

Nothing here that would show that there can't be any objective reality.

Not being able to discover an ultimate theory has nothing to do with it.

Different pictures of reality has nothing to do with it either, as I already said above.

I flat out disagree with the spontaneous creation of the universe out of nothing, but even if we grant it, that still has nothing to do with objective reality.

And let's just ignore the QM part, one can interpret it any way one wants, and even many of the observer-dependent interpretations are compatible with objective reality.

Your above is merely handwaving without solid justifications.
Your above are merely your opinions, beliefs and judgement which is highly subjective.

Show me proofs your 'objective reality' is really real.
First define your what is objective and what is real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm trying to mirror his own behaviour, looks like nothing drives him up the wall more.
(These funny little debates don't matter, I "won" against him years ago after our first few comments and nothing changed since.)

Yeah, "won" in those discussions you lost and ran away with your tails between the legs and left the forum for some time, then to reappear again. I was there all the while waiting for you to prove your claims but you ran away.
I suggest you raise a new thread to prove your point but you cowardly refuse to do.

It's not like we didn't know you don't give a shit about philosophy
You are just here to piss people off.

Well whatever you and VA are doing, I don't consider that philosophy. I figured out that shit when I was like 12.

When I ask you to formulate the issue you are arguing against you cannot even do it. I have to spoon feed you in raising this special thread.

I had you on ignored for a long time and it is still on.
From the above, from now on, I will consider you dead [re this forum] and will not be engaging with your posts.

[Atla]

Your above is merely handwaving without solid justifications.
Your above are merely your opinions, beliefs and judgement which is highly subjective.

Show me proofs your 'objective reality' is really real.
First define your what is objective and what is real.

You are doing all the handwaving, my claims are factual. Aside from some minor issues about what certain philosophers exactly believed, you haven't been able to show that anything I said was wrong, while I keep showing you wrong everyday.

You are lost because I have a strong general overview of science, while you are just cherrypicking some things some scientists said, and try to bend them to mean what you want them to mean.

You are just not in the league of having an adult philosophical discussion. For example I have ALREADY SAID 100 TIMES IN OTHER THREADS THAT AN OBJECTIVE REALITY CAN'T BE PROVEN, AND WHY THAT IS SO. You didn't understand it 100 times. Your will never be able to have a discussion about Kant.

[Atla]

I'm trying to mirror his own behaviour, looks like nothing drives him up the wall more.
(These funny little debates don't matter, I "won" against him years ago after our first few comments and nothing changed since.)

Yeah, "won" in those discussions you lost and ran away with your tails between the legs and left the forum for some time, then to reappear again. I was there all the while waiting for you to prove your claims but you ran away.
I suggest you raise a new thread to prove your point but you cowardly refuse to do.

It's not like we didn't know you don't give a shit about philosophy
You are just here to piss people off.

Well whatever you and VA are doing, I don't consider that philosophy. I figured out that shit when I was like 12.

When I ask you to formulate the issue you are arguing against you cannot even do it. I have to spoon feed you in raising this special thread.

I had you on ignored for a long time and it is still on.
From the above, from now on, I will consider you dead [re this forum] and will not be engaging with your posts.

I have proven my claims genius, you haven't understood nor my position nor the proofs. My position was formulated 50 times and you didn't understand it 50 times. It's not even difficult, you just have too low IQ apparently. When you have no idea what to say is when usually you run away from a thread and leave my last comments hanging.

And while this may hurt your narcissistic feelings a lot, but me taking a longer break has nothing to do with you. Well aside from tiring from the VA-bashing. But the "real philosophical debate" you lost at like the first dozen comments years ago.

[Atla]

What will it to do VA, when it finally starts to dawn on him that his main function on the forum really is being a comic relief? People weren't bluffing..

[Skepdick]

Well philosophy can sometimes help people see more clearly, which can be beneficial.

Yeah, but that's not the kind of philosophy you practice...

If anything you intentionally obscure people's clarity.

[Atla]

Well philosophy can sometimes help people see more clearly, which can be beneficial.

Yeah, but that's not the kind of philosophy you practice...

If anything you intentionally obscure people's clarity.

Well no, that's the one thing I don't do. But since you can neither process logic nor meaning/context, you probably can't imagine what clarity is to most people.

[Skepdick]

Well philosophy can sometimes help people see more clearly, which can be beneficial.

Yeah, but that's not the kind of philosophy you practice...

If anything you intentionally obscure people's clarity.

Well no, that's the one thing I don't do. But since you can neither process logic nor meaning/context, you probably can't imagine what clarity is to most people.

Contradiction. How would "most people" even know what clarity is like if most people have never attained it?

Q.E.D gaslighting seems to be your favourite tool for obscuring clarity.

Immoral is as immoral does...