The Ealing Interpretation

[Noax]

How can the farthest reach of scepticism not lead to idealism?

I suppose it can (lead to solipsism actually)

Idealism does not lead to solipsism because we all have the attitude that there be other minds.

That asserts that there is something 'out there' other than your own experiences and ideals, not a very skeptical suggestion. The farthest reaches leads to solipsism since other minds exist no more than actual apples, as opposed to the idea of an apple.


Concerning 'frames', I think we're using different definitions of the word and thus are talking past each other.

[Age]

I suppose it can (lead to solipsism actually)

Idealism does not lead to solipsism because we all have the attitude that there be other minds.

That asserts that there is something 'out there' other than your own experiences and ideals, not a very skeptical suggestion. The farthest reaches leads to solipsism since other minds exist no more than actual apples, as opposed to the idea of an apple.


Concerning 'frames', I think we're using different definitions of the word and thus are talking past each other.

YES, FINALLY some thing True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct is SAID and EXPRESSED, here.

LOL The BIGGEST REASON WHY you human beings here in this forum KEEP talking PAST each other is BECAUSE of the DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS that you ALL HAVE and USE, here, but VERY RARELY, if EVER, seek out CLARIFICATION, AGREEMENT, and ACCEPTANCE OF.

LOL you human beings have been ARGUING, or FIGHTING, over things like 'free will', 'God', the 'Universe' for countless centuries without ever REALLY STOPPING to ASK the question, 'What is the ACTUAL, EXACT, DEFINITION of these words, which 'we' are even FIGHTING and ARGUING, OVER?'

[Will Bouwman]

According to some, the block of time is a consequence of relativity.

It depends on how the premises of relativity are phrased, empirically or metaphysically.

Science or philosophy. As I never tire of saying, the metaphysics doesn't alter the empiricism.

In fact, the GR paper takes a more empirical tone, suggesting even a preferred frame in some instances, and it treats spacetime as a sort of fabric without going so far as to invoke the 'E' word.

My problem with the metaphysics of GR is that I don't see how matter warps spacetime. There may be some theoretical explanation that I am unaware of, but as I understand, it's just taken as read. Empirically, that's not a problem.
Incidentally, it was Einstein himself who invoked the E word:
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... ein_ether/
In the first section of my book, I explain how refraction works. That part concludes:
...there are all sorts of theories about what actually went bang and why it did so. The more mainstream theories are based on the idea of one or more fields, a bit like electric or magnetic fields. However you think about it, it’s some sort of big bang stuff with a staggering capacity to spread itself out and become a universe filled with particles.
In the 'Nuclear Physics' section that follows, rather than 'æther', I suggest refraction as a conceptual mechanism of gravity in the context of quantum fields as described: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

[Belinda]

I suppose it can (lead to solipsism actually)

Idealism does not lead to solipsism because we all have the attitude that there be other minds.

That asserts that there is something 'out there' other than your own experiences and ideals, not a very skeptical suggestion. The farthest reaches leads to solipsism since other minds exist no more than actual apples, as opposed to the idea of an apple.


Concerning 'frames', I think we're using different definitions of the word and thus are talking past each other.

I can't rebut what you say. I wish I could. I have somewhere read a refutation of solipsism, and I must look it up. It may be something to do with "minds/the mind is ideas of the brain" which is like apples /apple is also ideas of certain measurements of time, space, and force.

If there were eternity such that it were one idea in the mind of God (i.e. solipsism) then this one idea would necessarily include the idea of other minds, without privileging any idea over any other idea. And the mind of God would include that it could analyse as well as synthesise. Introspect as hard as I can, I can't possibly view myself as inclusive as the hypothetical mind of God must be.

Concerning 'frames' my idea of what frames are comes largely from the EPR experiment which, interpreted, concludes space does not exist. I also got my idea of 'frames' from the double slit experiment and from The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. I'm not a physicist and I only know popular descriptions of experiments.

[Noax]

As I never tire of saying, the metaphysics doesn't alter the empiricism.

Indeed. I did suggest an empirical way to falsify presentism, so perhaps it isn't entirely a metaphysical stance after all.

I have somewhere read a refutation of solipsism

It would seem very hard to refute since given certain views, no empirical data can be considered as evidence at all. Just as an illustrative example (not of solipsism), there's no empirical way to falsify last-Tuesdayism. Trying to do so is an educational exercise, one that any philosopher should attempt.

Concerning 'frames' my idea of what frames are comes largely from the EPR experiment which, interpreted, concludes space does not exist.

I'm unaware of that conclusion. It does seem to presume that both locality and counterfactuals are true, and it has been proven that they cannot both be. No valid interpretation of QM suggests both. EPR was done before this was made clear, and people were still trying to describe physics with classical rules.

[Age]

According to some, the block of time is a consequence of relativity.

It depends on how the premises of relativity are phrased, empirically or metaphysically.

Science or philosophy. As I never tire of saying, the metaphysics doesn't alter the empiricism.

Do you also say, the empiricism does not alter the empiricism?

If no, then why not?

Also, what do you even mean by 'metaphysics', here?

In fact, the GR paper takes a more empirical tone, suggesting even a preferred frame in some instances, and it treats spacetime as a sort of fabric without going so far as to invoke the 'E' word.

My problem with the metaphysics of GR is that I don't see how matter warps spacetime.

This is BECAUSE the word and phrase 'spacetime' is just some MADE UP 'thing', which NO one could NOR would even EXPLAIN.

LOL you people can NOT even EXPLAIN 'space' AND 'time' and reach AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE. So, how MUCH MORE SO would reaching AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE on what 'spacetime' take, EXACTLY?

There may be some theoretical explanation that I am unaware of, but as I understand, it's just taken as read. Empirically, that's not a problem.
Incidentally, it was Einstein himself who invoked the E word:

ONCE MORE 'these people' speak of though if "albert einstien" said 'it', then 'it' MUST BE true AND correct, just like 'other people' speak as though if "jesus christ" said 'it', then 'it' MUST be right AND accurate.

LOL ALL of 'these people' are just FOLLOWERS of 'others'. And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout this forum there is hardly any, if ANY, 'Self-introspection' to SEEK OUT and FIND OUT if what 'others' have said and claimed, which 'they' 'now' BELIEVE and also CLAIM is true, right, accurate, or correct is ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... ein_ether/
In the first section of my book, I explain how refraction works. That part concludes:
...there are all sorts of theories about what actually went bang and why it did so. The more mainstream theories are based on the idea of one or more fields, a bit like electric or magnetic fields. However you think about it, it’s some sort of big bang stuff with a staggering capacity to spread itself out and become a universe filled with particles.

See HOW 'these people', really, DID just NOT 'think', NOR 'find out' things, FOR, and/or BY, "themselves".

In the 'Nuclear Physics' section that follows, rather than 'æther', I suggest refraction as a conceptual mechanism of gravity in the context of quantum fields as described: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

[Age]

Idealism does not lead to solipsism because we all have the attitude that there be other minds.

That asserts that there is something 'out there' other than your own experiences and ideals, not a very skeptical suggestion. The farthest reaches leads to solipsism since other minds exist no more than actual apples, as opposed to the idea of an apple.



Concerning 'frames', I think we're using different definitions of the word and thus are talking past each other.

I can't rebut what you say. I wish I could. I have somewhere read a refutation of solipsism, and I must look it up. It may be something to do with "minds/the mind is ideas of the brain" which is like apples /apple is also ideas of certain measurements of time, space, and force.

Which 'version' of the MANY, MANY, MANY DIFFERENT 'versions' of 'solipsism', where you, somewhere, read a refutation of 'solipsism'?

Also, WHY, exactly, would you want to 'wish' you could 'rebut' some thing?

Is it so 'other things' would then 'fit in' better with your 'current' BELIEFS of things?

If there were eternity such that it were one idea in the mind of God (i.e. solipsism) then this one idea would necessarily include the idea of other minds, without privileging any idea over any other idea.

And the mind of God would include that it could analyse as well as synthesise. Introspect as hard as I can, I can't possibly view myself as inclusive as the hypothetical mind of God must be.

This is, REALLY, how Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS things had gotten, back in those 'extremely olden days', when this was being written.

Concerning 'frames' my idea of what frames are comes largely from the EPR experiment which, interpreted, concludes space does not exist. I also got my idea of 'frames' from the double slit experiment and from The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. I'm not a physicist and I only know popular descriptions of experiments.

[Age]

As I never tire of saying, the metaphysics doesn't alter the empiricism.

Indeed. I did suggest an empirical way to falsify presentism, so perhaps it isn't entirely a metaphysical stance after all.

I have somewhere read a refutation of solipsism

It would seem very hard to refute since given certain views, no empirical data can be considered as evidence at all. Just as an illustrative example (not of solipsism), there's no empirical way to falsify last-Tuesdayism. Trying to do so is an educational exercise, one that any philosopher should attempt.

If some actual thing existed, previously, like a '24 hour period', which was 'given' a particular and specific name, for example, then even beginning to 'try to' 'falsify', let alone even 'trying to' find an 'empirical way, 'to falsify', that ALREADY KNOWN to exist 'actual thing' would only be 'started' by someone who was NOT very 'switched on', as some might say, here.

Concerning 'frames' my idea of what frames are comes largely from the EPR experiment which, interpreted, concludes space does not exist.

I'm unaware of that conclusion. It does seem to presume that both locality and counterfactuals are true, and it has been proven that they cannot both be. No valid interpretation of QM suggests both. EPR was done before this was made clear, and people were still trying to describe physics with classical rules.

[Belinda]

As I never tire of saying, the metaphysics doesn't alter the empiricism.

Indeed. I did suggest an empirical way to falsify presentism, so perhaps it isn't entirely a metaphysical stance after all.

I have somewhere read a refutation of solipsism

It would seem very hard to refute since given certain views, no empirical data can be considered as evidence at all. Just as an illustrative example (not of solipsism), there's no empirical way to falsify last-Tuesdayism. Trying to do so is an educational exercise, one that any philosopher should attempt.

Concerning 'frames' my idea of what frames are comes largely from the EPR experiment which, interpreted, concludes space does not exist.

I'm unaware of that conclusion. It does seem to presume that both locality and counterfactuals are true, and it has been proven that they cannot both be. No valid interpretation of QM suggests both. EPR was done before this was made clear, and people were still trying to describe physics with classical rules.

But refutations of solipsism are rational not empirical. Last-Tuesdayism appears to be based in the frame of time. Solipsism does not concern any frame at all as the one mind may invent any frame it desires.

The EPR experiment goes back to the 1930s as I recall. That fact hardly matters to its validity or comprehension because historical 'periods' are loosely interwoven why I used startle marks. Simply put , the spatially divided electron is either the same electron or it's not. One could go on for ever asking the electron experimental questions to discover the electron is two or more electrons , or one could assume it's the same electron. If the latter then space does not exist in the case of the electron; except of course as a heuristic for our own everyday benefit.

Moreover I am informed that a lot of useful AI products are founded on the electrons' being the same electron.

[Age]

As I never tire of saying, the metaphysics doesn't alter the empiricism.

Indeed. I did suggest an empirical way to falsify presentism, so perhaps it isn't entirely a metaphysical stance after all.

I have somewhere read a refutation of solipsism

It would seem very hard to refute since given certain views, no empirical data can be considered as evidence at all. Just as an illustrative example (not of solipsism), there's no empirical way to falsify last-Tuesdayism. Trying to do so is an educational exercise, one that any philosopher should attempt.

Concerning 'frames' my idea of what frames are comes largely from the EPR experiment which, interpreted, concludes space does not exist.

I'm unaware of that conclusion. It does seem to presume that both locality and counterfactuals are true, and it has been proven that they cannot both be. No valid interpretation of QM suggests both. EPR was done before this was made clear, and people were still trying to describe physics with classical rules.

But refutations of solipsism are rational not empirical. Last-Tuesdayism appears to be based in the frame of time.

REALLY, 'appears to be ...'?

Solipsism does not concern any frame at all as the one mind may invent any frame it desires.

The EPR experiment goes back to the 1930s as I recall. That fact hardly matters to its validity or comprehension because historical 'periods' are loosely interwoven why I used startle marks.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of what IS', in one cult/ure, and/or country, is NOT in another cult/ure or country. And, WHERE the human beings of 'the time' when this was being written were NOT YET FULLY AWARE of this IRREFUTABLE Fact, or NOT YET FULLY AWARE of just HOW COMMON PLACE this phenomena REALLY IS.

Simply put , the spatially divided electron is either the same electron or it's not.

LOL HOW COULD 'one electron', or ANY 'one thing', even BE 'spatially divided', exactly?

One could go on for ever asking the electron experimental questions to discover the electron is two or more electrons ,

One could, but doing so would be Truly UNNECESSARY. As the ACTUAL ANSWER IS, and WAS, ALREADY KNOWN.

or one could assume it's the same electron.

you human beings ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to ASSUME, and/or BELIEF, ABSOLUTELY ANY thing you LIKE or WANT TO.

If the latter then space does not exist in the case of the electron; except of course as a heuristic for our own everyday benefit.

OBVIOUSLY what 'heuristic' MEANS, or REFERS TO, to one, does NOT MEAN, nor REFER TO, to another, one.

Also, if 'it' is the SAME 'electron', THEN 'it' WAS NOT 'spatially divided', as you FIRST ALLEGED, and CLAIMED.

The 'entangled state' or 'quantum entangled' is just ANOTHER 'IMAGINED thing', which would be an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY TO PROVE, or DISPROVE, (or VERIFY or FALSIFY, for some, here).

Moreover I am informed that a lot of useful AI products are founded on the electrons' being the same electron.

LOL

So, the word, 'electrons', with an 's', so plural, to 'artificial intelligence' is being the 'same electron'. Which would be like saying and claiming that people are the 'same person'.

Obviously, if there are 'electrons', with an 's', then ALL of 'them' are NOT the 'same electron'. But, just AS OBVIOUS is that 'they' are ALL 'electrons', or AN 'electron'.

Just like ALL 'people' ARE 'a person', but NO 'two people' are the SAME 'one person'.

Surely 'this' is, nor was, to hard nor complex to comprehend AND understand, right?

[Will Bouwman]

...I did suggest an empirical way to falsify presentism, so perhaps it isn't entirely a metaphysical stance after all.

I have somewhere read a refutation of solipsism

It would seem very hard to refute since given certain views, no empirical data can be considered as evidence at all. Just as an illustrative example (not of solipsism), there's no empirical way to falsify last-Tuesdayism. Trying to do so is an educational exercise, one that any philosopher should attempt.

Well anyone trained in philosophy who hasn't bashed their head against that particular wall hasn't been trained in philosophy. Ultimately, all empiricism can prove is that the data you have to hand is or isn't consistent with whatever hypothesis you are interested in. Which is as true of any empirical falsification of presentism as any of the metaphysical elements of the subject of this thread: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html The main metaphysical proposition of which is that the universe is made of something, and that something has the qualities necessary to make motorbikes and alcohol. And some other stuff. If yer bored of relativity, don't worry, it's only 4 pages at the end.

[Age]

...I did suggest an empirical way to falsify presentism, so perhaps it isn't entirely a metaphysical stance after all.

I have somewhere read a refutation of solipsism

It would seem very hard to refute since given certain views, no empirical data can be considered as evidence at all. Just as an illustrative example (not of solipsism), there's no empirical way to falsify last-Tuesdayism. Trying to do so is an educational exercise, one that any philosopher should attempt.

Well anyone trained in philosophy who hasn't bashed their head against that particular wall hasn't been trained in philosophy. Ultimately, all empiricism can prove is that the data you have to hand is or isn't consistent with whatever hypothesis you are interested in. Which is as true of any empirical falsification of presentism as any of the metaphysical elements of the subject of this thread: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html The main metaphysical proposition of which is that the universe is made of something, and that something has the qualities necessary to make motorbikes and alcohol. And some other stuff. If yer bored of relativity, don't worry, it's only 4 pages at the end.

LOL It appears that this one, STILL, has NOT YET WORKED OUT what ACTUALLY IS the 'thing', EXACTLY, that this one calls and refers to as 'something' and 'stuff'. Yet this one wants to write books explaining how the Universe and 'stuff' works.

Again, I suggest you find out, or learn, and understand what 'it' is, and how 'it' ACTUALLY WORKS, FIRST, BEFORE you even begin 'try to' write about 'it'.

And, once again, if you would like help in finding and using the Right, Accurate, and Correct words, here, then do not be shy in ASKING me for help.