Philosophy Now Forum

From the point of view of science and of philosophy, all of the above are completely inept. What is your evidence that any of it applies to me? Can you construct a logical argument to demonstrate that it must?

If on the other hand this is going to be an examination of my supposed intellectual weaknesses, I might choose to kick your cerebral butt, more likely you can kiss my philosophical arse goodbye.

Kuznetzova wrote:Now follow this slowly because it gets a little tricky. What I actually said to you was a syllogism. A syllogism takes this form:

If P then Q.

Kuznetzova wrote:How can you stand there and say there is zero connection between the geometry of the equations and the actual extended geometry of spacetime (that thing out there in the world) ?

Kuznetzova wrote:"Because I'm a skeptic and your logic is wonky" is not going to be a persuasive answer to any of those questions. Sorry.

Kuznetzova wrote:I honestly don't think that blank can be filled in with "because I am a solipsist who does not believe in science" - or some variation of that stance. I get my fill of that type of stoner philosophy enough in chat rooms.

Kuznetzova wrote:At this point, I would be shocked if you cannot follow the conversation, considering how obviously clear I have made it. (Unless that is, you are stoned, high, or haven't slept).

Kuznetzova wrote:You have some choices. One, you can tell me that you are not saying R1 ("I refuse to speculate because metaphysics is hogwash and I choose to remain skeptical") to begin with. (But you haven't).

tillingborn wrote:Common sense certainly does dictate this, kuznetzova, however in this situation there is a more subtle hook because material monism as I have outlined it is a metaphysical world view.

Kuznetzova wrote:Or you can be clear and admit outrightly that you are saying R1, and that therefore my question M7 stands directed to you, and I would expect an answer from you -- and a serious one.

Kuznetzova wrote:tillingborn,

Explain Galactic Redshift to the forum. But make sure to not refer to space , or spacetime, as a substance. You have the mic.

Kuznetzova wrote:Explain Galactic Redshift to the forum. But make sure to not refer to space , or spacetime, as a substance.

tillingborn wrote:

Kuznetzova wrote:Explain Galactic Redshift to the forum. But make sure to not refer to space , or spacetime, as a substance.

Bit of an odd condition to impose given that I have stated my opinion on material monism and aether theories.
Anyway, how'd I do?

Hjaroprillar, I'd be very disappointed if I didn't upset at least some of the contributors.

What is space? What is time? Do they exist independently of the things and processes in them? Or is their existence parasitic on these things and processes? Are they like a canvas onto which an artist paints; they exist whether or not the artist paints on them? Or are they akin to parenthood; there is no parenthood until there are parents and children? That is, is there no space and time until there are things with spatial properties and processes with temporal durations?

These questions have long been debated and continue to be debated. The hole argument arose when these questions were asked in the context of modern spacetime physics. In that context, space and time are fused into a single entity, spacetime, and we inquire into its status. One view is that spacetime is a substance, a thing that exists independently of the processes occurring within spacetime. This is spacetime substantivalism. The hole argument seeks to show that this viewpoint leads to unpalatable conclusions in a large class of spacetime theories. Spacetime substantivalism requires that we ascribe such a surfeit of properties to spacetime that neither observation nor even the laws of the relevant spacetime theory itself can determine which are the correct ones. Such abundance is neither logically contradictory nor refuted by experience. But there must be some bounds on how rich a repertoire of hidden properties can be ascribed to spacetime. The hole argument urges that spacetime substantivalism goes beyond those bounds.

Kuznetzova wrote:Ninja Mod is deleting posts so fast that I'm losing track of conversations on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the thread where Hjarlo elaborated on this face-sitting fantasy with the flow into the ears?

Anyways, I sent a private message about this to Hjarlo, but Ninja Mod reached his sneaky hands into the PM system and deleted all that correspondence as well. I have made coherent complaints about how this entire forum is being moderated, and several regulars read those threads and responded. Hours later, the entire thread vanishes never to be seen again.

What bothers me now, is that I cannot even share an email address with any user on this forum in order to contact that person outside the forum. I guess my main point of this post is that there is nothing in the rules of this forum that dictates users are not allowed to share contact information in the PM system.

This means, currently I have been placed under a different set of rules specially-made for Kuznetzova and nobody else. On top of this, I am receiving nothing from any moderator as far as direct complaints.

Kuznetzova wrote:...
Anyways, I sent a private message about this to Hjarlo, but Ninja Mod reached his sneaky hands into the PM system and deleted all that correspondence as well. ...

What bothers me now, is that I cannot even share an email address with any user on this forum in order to contact that person outside the forum. I guess my main point of this post is that there is nothing in the rules of this forum that dictates users are not allowed to share contact information in the PM system.

This means, currently I have been placed under a different set of rules specially-made for Kuznetzova and nobody else. On top of this, I am receiving nothing from any moderator as far as direct complaints.