The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

Kid in ice cream shop: "Maybe I want Chocolate, or perhaps I might prefer Rocky Road"
Immanuel Can: "Impossible you foolish child! you have broken the law of non-contradiction."

Wow. You're really not bright.

Don't you know the difference between aesthetic preferences and truth? Don't you know the basic rules of logic?

What are you doing here, on this forum, then?

Ah. Troll.

Got it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Kid in ice cream shop: "Maybe I want Chocolate, or perhaps I might prefer Rocky Road"
Immanuel Can: "Impossible you foolish child! you have broken the law of non-contradiction."

Wow. You're really not bright.

Don't you know the difference between aesthetic preferences and truth? Don't you know the basic rules of logic?

What are you doing here, on this forum, then?

Ah. Troll.

Got it.

LOL, strong words from the guy who can't tell between "I don't hold belief X" and "I assert Not X". You have almost got a point there, you shouldn't be on a philosophy forum.

To be honest you ought to be banned for the rate at which you argue in bad faith.

[Will Bouwman]

You "don't believe" that physics can describe every phenomenon.
You "don't believe" that physics cannot describe every phenomenon.
I'm sorry to contradict, but that's impossible. Aristotle's law of non-contradiction certainly applies here. All possible positions are covered in that dichotomy. If you "don't believe either," then inescapably, it means that you believe something nonsensical. It can be no other way.


Do you really intend us to understand that you believe the impossible?

You really don't understand underdetermination, do you?

I understand logic. And the law of non-contradiction covers this one beautifully.

No it doesn't. Frankly, I don't think you understand your own argument. Where is the contradiction in saying I don't know whether or not physics can describe every phenomenon? Where is the contradiction in saying I don't believe either?

That you don't want to answer, I understand.

You don't understand that I have answered.

But reality doesn't work the way you'd like it to. It still insists on truth.

Well, either physics can explain everything, or it can't. So I grant that one of your propositions is true. But I don't know which one it is, and while you might have a strongly held belief, nor do you.

And those who fight it have never won, even once.

I think you should address your own struggles with reality rather than project them onto others.

[Immanuel Can]

You really don't understand underdetermination, do you?

I understand logic. And the law of non-contradiction covers this one beautifully.

No it doesn't.

Yeah, it does.

Where is the contradiction in saying I don't know whether or not physics can describe every phenomenon?

You have to believe one or the other: that it can, or it can't. There's no third option. You can't possibly know anything that hasn't happened yet, so you can't say, "It doesn't, but it will." In any case, that would be an admission that you recognize that it doesn't.

So you're out of options.

But reality doesn't work the way you'd like it to. It still insists on truth.

Well, either physics can explain everything, or it can't. So I grant that one of your propositions is true.

There you go. That wasn't hard, was it?

But I don't know which one it is,...

You don't know what physics presently covers? I think you do. It covers physical phenomena. But if you say you don't, I'll believe you. You don't seem to be willing to say what you think physics covers, so maybe you can't, because you realize you don't know.

Okay. Shrug time.

[mickthinks]

I think you should address your own struggles with reality rather than project them onto others.

To be honest you ought to be banned for the rate at which you argue in bad faith.

You lie on every level, on every occasion, in every respect; without regard or shame or even self-awareness. It's pathological, Manny. Get help!

All good things come in threes.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think you should address your own struggles with reality rather than project them onto others.

To be honest you ought to be banned for the rate at which you argue in bad faith.

You lie on every level, on every occasion, in every respect; without regard or shame or even self-awareness. It's pathological, Manny. Get help!

All good things come in threes.

Poor guy, and to think he's moments away from losing his shit over due process again.

[Will Bouwman]

You have to believe one or the other: that it can, or it can't.

Those of us not blighted by whatever ails you feel no shame in admitting that we don't know.

There's no third option.

The fact that you can't do it doesn't make it impossible.

[Immanuel Can]

You have to believe one or the other: that it can, or it can't.

Those of us not blighted by whatever ails you feel no shame in admitting that we don't know.

Then admit it: you don't know what "physics" can or cannot cover, and are thus in no position to declare whether or not physics can deal with any non-physical phenomena like mind, morals, self, social goods, etc.

It's taken you a long time to admit what was very obvious.

There's no third option.

The fact that you can't do it doesn't make it impossible.

It makes it undone. It means that all "possibilities" are not reflective of present realities, and are thus merely speculations ungrounded in the facts of the present...in other words, just vague wishes -- if anything at all.

Physics is not now, and cannot be known to be about to become in future, the total explanation for all real phenomena. Point made, I would say.

[Dubious]

Physics, like all other sciences, is merely the sum of ongoing processes of discovery and further refinements in knowing. It doesn't get anymore complicated than that. It's how we use it which becomes questionable.

[Immanuel Can]

Physics, like all other sciences, is merely the sum of ongoing processes of discovery and further refinements in knowing.

But in knowing what? It's clearly not in knowing everything. So what are the limitations of the discipline of physics? What does it purport to make us able to know, and what does it not pretend to make us able to know? That's the issue. And my suggestion is that it's the master discipline for learning about the physical properties of physical entities. But it is not more than that.

[Dubious]

Physics, like all other sciences, is merely the sum of ongoing processes of discovery and further refinements in knowing.

But in knowing what?

Weird question! Whatever we get to know based on our ability to know, as in anything which remains undiscovered.

It's clearly not in knowing everything.

True! Whoever said it was? There is no such thing as knowing everything!

So what are the limitations of the discipline of physics?

Who knows, and why is that important?

[FlashDangerpants]

You have to believe one or the other: that it can, or it can't.

Those of us not blighted by whatever ails you feel no shame in admitting that we don't know.

Then admit it: you don't know what "physics" can or cannot cover, and are thus in no position to declare whether or not physics can deal with any non-physical phenomena like mind, morals, self, social goods, etc.

It's taken you a long time to admit what was very obvious.

In your mind, how do you think the confession you demand there relates to the thing he was trying to tell you that you wouldn't permit him to say?

[Immanuel Can]

Physics, like all other sciences, is merely the sum of ongoing processes of discovery and further refinements in knowing.

But in knowing what?

Weird question! Whatever we get to know based on our ability to know, as in anything which remains undiscovered.

But physics...what does the discipline of physics deal with? What "knowledge" does it address? Is it all knowledge, or something specific? That's the question.

It's clearly not all knowledge. If it were, then physics would not be a distinct discipline at all: it would be simply a complete synonym for "to know." It would have no specialness, no focus, no special competence, nothing even worthy of special note that was not also covered by the simple word "knowledge." So again, what "knowledge" does physics address? What is its zone of competence?

So what are the limitations of the discipline of physics?

Who knows, and why is that important?

If nobody knows, then obviously, there's no distinct discipline known as "physics." But if physics is real, and physics is important, then shouldn't we know what its area of focus is?

That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

In your mind, how do you think the confession you demand there relates to the thing he was trying to tell you that you wouldn't permit him to say?

Troll.

[Will Bouwman]

Then admit it: you don't know what "physics" can or cannot cover...

Blimey. Just how bonkers are you, Mr Can? Have you genuinely convinced yourself that I haven't admitted that I don't know what physics can cover consistently from the beginning of this farce? Not only do I admit it, I have been at pains to explain how I know I don't know. It's the same reason I know you don't know.