For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I believe that there are old women who do not believe in anything at all. And I believe that there are old women who believe in all old wives' tales.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:56 am
Do you not believe that there are antirealists on laws of nature or that there can be antirealists on laws of nature?
First let me say, that is almost exactly my view of science. I also agree with what you wrote to Janoah, "I can understand why folks believe in it more or less and at least desire for there to be a GUT. I don't think that the notion of real laws of nature really makes sense though, especially because it would require real abstracts that would essentially be akin to platonic universals."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:38 amIdeally what there is (and isn't) and for the former, how it "behaves" or what it's like/what its characteristics are, what its "nature" is/how it works, which is also what philosophy ideally does, with science being differentiated by an emphasis on an experimental methodology. What science actually spends far too much time doing, however, is reifying mathematics and doing bad philosophy. (Not that philosophers don't also do a lot of bad philosophy, unfortunately.)RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:14 amWhat exactly is it that science discovers?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:42 am (1) One believes that the world is comprised solely of physical things.
(2) One doesn't believe that there are any real natural laws.
So you do believe in Materialism, but you don't believe in any governing dynamics? That would suggest an inert universe, a "physical" without any "physics," wouldn't it?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:26 amThey can believe that there isn't anything "governing" matter.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:51 amSo...you're suggesting a Physicalist can believe that the world's "substances," if we can use that word, are physical. And you use the word "solely," which means there's nothing at all excluded from that characterization of things. Right?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:42 am (1) One believes that the world is comprised solely of physical things.
(2) One doesn't believe that there are any real natural laws.
But you think a Physicalist doesn't have to believe that the dynamics or "laws" governing these substances are real or "physical"?
I'm going to need some clarification on that.
"The world is solely comprised of physical things" doesn't imply "There is something governing (what) the world (is solely comprised of)."
Correct--at least not as anything like natural/physical laws. (Which is what I've been saying over and over.)Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:10 pm So you do believe in Materialism, but you don't believe in any governing dynamics?
Re the physics part, only if you equate physics with natural/physical law realism. I do not. (Nor do any other antirealists on natural/physical laws.)That would suggest an inert universe, a "physical" without any "physics," wouldn't it?
Why? Physicalism HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEORIES OF WHY MATTER MOVES OR CHANGES.Again, you're going to help me understand how the matter can move or change if it has no physics or dynamics.
Okay . . . so what about natural/physical law antirealists?Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:11 pmI believe that there are old women who do not believe in anything at all. And I believe that there are old women who believe in all old wives' tales.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:56 am
Do you not believe that there are antirealists on laws of nature or that there can be antirealists on laws of nature?
Sure, physical law as an abstraction, as a way of thinking about observations and stating generalizations about them, are fine. And that's NOT natural/physical law realism by the way, but antirealism. In other words, natural/physical laws are not something objective that actually exist in any manner. They're a subjective, generalized way of thinking and talking about observations.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:53 pmFirst let me say, that is almost exactly my view of science. I also agree with what you wrote to Janoah, "I can understand why folks believe in it more or less and at least desire for there to be a GUT. I don't think that the notion of real laws of nature really makes sense though, especially because it would require real abstracts that would essentially be akin to platonic universals."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:38 amIdeally what there is (and isn't) and for the former, how it "behaves" or what it's like/what its characteristics are, what its "nature" is/how it works, which is also what philosophy ideally does, with science being differentiated by an emphasis on an experimental methodology. What science actually spends far too much time doing, however, is reifying mathematics and doing bad philosophy. (Not that philosophers don't also do a lot of bad philosophy, unfortunately.)
That last point is perhaps most important. The so-called, "natural laws," or, "laws of physics," have been pre-empted and redefined by philosophers and mystics to imply those laws existed first and reality, in some way, is made to conform to the laws, which, as you point out, is akin to platonic universals. And, I might add, shear nonsense.
I also think your simple description of science is not only correct, but profound in its simplicity. All there is for science to study is, "what there is," "how it behaves," "what it is it like," "its characteristics," "its nature," and "how it works."
What a good scientist means by the, "laws of physics," or science are those aspects of, "what is," that have been discovered and correctly describe, "what there is," "how it behaves," "what it is it like," "its characteristics," "its nature," and "how it works," and that those discoveries are correct and every technological success (which depends on those scientific descriptions (laws) of what exists) are a success because reality really has that nature.
The physical world is not what it is because it conforms to some so-called laws of nature, the laws of nature (or physics or science) are only true if they correctly describe what is as it is. Physical laws do not determine what is or how it behaves, they can only describe what is and how it behaves.
[Personally I prefer the term, "scientific principles," to, "laws," because the word, "law," implies something, "enforced," which is exactly what is wrong with the common view of scientific law.]
Does that make sense to you?
I'm sorry, I really do not understand what you mean. Are you saying that all that science has discovered is nothing more than, "generalizations," that are not rigorously correct descriptions of any attributes of physical reality? What you've written sounds like a repudiation of scientific achievement as nothing more than some kind of inadequate, "generalizations," but perhaps that's not what you mean.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:15 pmSure, physical law as an abstraction, as a way of thinking about observations and stating generalizations about them, are fine. And that's NOT natural/physical law realism by the way, but antirealism. In other words, natural/physical laws are not something objective that actually exist in any manner. They're a subjective, generalized way of thinking and talking about observations.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:53 pmFirst let me say, that is almost exactly my view of science. I also agree with what you wrote to Janoah, "I can understand why folks believe in it more or less and at least desire for there to be a GUT. I don't think that the notion of real laws of nature really makes sense though, especially because it would require real abstracts that would essentially be akin to platonic universals."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:38 am
Ideally what there is (and isn't) and for the former, how it "behaves" or what it's like/what its characteristics are, what its "nature" is/how it works, which is also what philosophy ideally does, with science being differentiated by an emphasis on an experimental methodology. What science actually spends far too much time doing, however, is reifying mathematics and doing bad philosophy. (Not that philosophers don't also do a lot of bad philosophy, unfortunately.)
That last point is perhaps most important. The so-called, "natural laws," or, "laws of physics," have been pre-empted and redefined by philosophers and mystics to imply those laws existed first and reality, in some way, is made to conform to the laws, which, as you point out, is akin to platonic universals. And, I might add, shear nonsense.
I also think your simple description of science is not only correct, but profound in its simplicity. All there is for science to study is, "what there is," "how it behaves," "what it is it like," "its characteristics," "its nature," and "how it works."
What a good scientist means by the, "laws of physics," or science are those aspects of, "what is," that have been discovered and correctly describe, "what there is," "how it behaves," "what it is it like," "its characteristics," "its nature," and "how it works," and that those discoveries are correct and every technological success (which depends on those scientific descriptions (laws) of what exists) are a success because reality really has that nature.
The physical world is not what it is because it conforms to some so-called laws of nature, the laws of nature (or physics or science) are only true if they correctly describe what is as it is. Physical laws do not determine what is or how it behaves, they can only describe what is and how it behaves.
[Personally I prefer the term, "scientific principles," to, "laws," because the word, "law," implies something, "enforced," which is exactly what is wrong with the common view of scientific law.]
Does that make sense to you?
We make generalizations. We don't discover them per se. Because there are no general things in the world--there are only unique particulars. Abstractions are something we do, not something we discover.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:53 pmI'm sorry, I really do not understand what you mean. Are you saying that all that science has discovered is nothing more than, "generalizations," that are not rigorously correct descriptions of any attributes of physical reality? What you've written sounds like a repudiation of scientific achievement as nothing more than some kind of inadequate, "generalizations," but perhaps that's not what you mean.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:15 pmSure, physical law as an abstraction, as a way of thinking about observations and stating generalizations about them, are fine. And that's NOT natural/physical law realism by the way, but antirealism. In other words, natural/physical laws are not something objective that actually exist in any manner. They're a subjective, generalized way of thinking and talking about observations.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:53 pm
First let me say, that is almost exactly my view of science. I also agree with what you wrote to Janoah, "I can understand why folks believe in it more or less and at least desire for there to be a GUT. I don't think that the notion of real laws of nature really makes sense though, especially because it would require real abstracts that would essentially be akin to platonic universals."
That last point is perhaps most important. The so-called, "natural laws," or, "laws of physics," have been pre-empted and redefined by philosophers and mystics to imply those laws existed first and reality, in some way, is made to conform to the laws, which, as you point out, is akin to platonic universals. And, I might add, shear nonsense.
I also think your simple description of science is not only correct, but profound in its simplicity. All there is for science to study is, "what there is," "how it behaves," "what it is it like," "its characteristics," "its nature," and "how it works."
What a good scientist means by the, "laws of physics," or science are those aspects of, "what is," that have been discovered and correctly describe, "what there is," "how it behaves," "what it is it like," "its characteristics," "its nature," and "how it works," and that those discoveries are correct and every technological success (which depends on those scientific descriptions (laws) of what exists) are a success because reality really has that nature.
The physical world is not what it is because it conforms to some so-called laws of nature, the laws of nature (or physics or science) are only true if they correctly describe what is as it is. Physical laws do not determine what is or how it behaves, they can only describe what is and how it behaves.
[Personally I prefer the term, "scientific principles," to, "laws," because the word, "law," implies something, "enforced," which is exactly what is wrong with the common view of scientific law.]
Does that make sense to you?
If possible, could you please evade referring to various, "-isms," which I have neither interest in or use for. I'm only interested in what you mean, not how it relates to some ideology or another.
Well, no.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:09 pmRe the physics part, only if you equate physics with natural/physical law realism. I do not. (Nor do any other antirealists on natural/physical laws.)Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:10 pm That would suggest an inert universe, a "physical" without any "physics," wouldn't it?
But the dynamics is a "thing" that "is." And you say it's not physical...Physicalism is MERELY a thesis about what sorts of things there are.
But it's a neat trick...you're calling whatever forces mobilize the "physical" stuff non-physical, and then claiming "everything extant" is still "physical."Nothing else is required for physicalism aside from a belief that everything extant is physical. That's it.
I still don't know what you are getting at. I don't know what you mean by a generalization, and I don't know what you mean by an abstraction. Perhaps you could give examples. I can suggest some, but I'm only be guessing.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:55 pmWe make generalizations. We don't discover them per se. Because there are no general things in the world--there are only unique particulars. Abstractions are something we do, not something we discover.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:53 pmI'm sorry, I really do not understand what you mean. Are you saying that all that science has discovered is nothing more than, "generalizations," that are not rigorously correct descriptions of any attributes of physical reality? What you've written sounds like a repudiation of scientific achievement as nothing more than some kind of inadequate, "generalizations," but perhaps that's not what you mean.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:15 pm
Sure, physical law as an abstraction, as a way of thinking about observations and stating generalizations about them, are fine. And that's NOT natural/physical law realism by the way, but antirealism. In other words, natural/physical laws are not something objective that actually exist in any manner. They're a subjective, generalized way of thinking and talking about observations.
If possible, could you please evade referring to various, "-isms," which I have neither interest in or use for. I'm only interested in what you mean, not how it relates to some ideology or another.
That's it?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:13 pm And material is just a cloud of potential (mistaken by certain peculiar aggregates of material [that would be us] as actual and ordered).
All organization of matter (material [potential]), and Reality itself (as the domain of actuality [which it isn't]), is just dumb luck. Just a blip of nuthin' that mistook itself for sunthin' that will de-blip. Reality, and all things within, just a hiccup in the Void.
When you strip away fine language: the above is what they say.
nuthin' from nuthin' is nuthin'
Oh, I'm sure I'm completely off the mark.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:41 amThat's it?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:13 pm And material is just a cloud of potential (mistaken by certain peculiar aggregates of material [that would be us] as actual and ordered).
All organization of matter (material [potential]), and Reality itself (as the domain of actuality [which it isn't]), is just dumb luck. Just a blip of nuthin' that mistook itself for sunthin' that will de-blip. Reality, and all things within, just a hiccup in the Void.
When you strip away fine language: the above is what they say.
nuthin' from nuthin' is nuthin'
Wow. Is that ever...well, I'll have to wait to see what TS says, because I'm reluctant to attribute to him a belief that is so obviously contradictory of itself.
If "dumb luck" ran the universe, there would be no possibility at all of science. For by definition, you can't predict "dumb luck." Unless something at least constrains the range of possible "potential" alternatives, then there are no predictions possible, no matter how one treats any data. Knowledge itself would become not simply questionable, but utterly unachievable. And there would most certainly be no such creatures as we are, and no such universe as we inhabit, if "dumb luck" was the basic dynamic of the universe.
So if that's what they believe, I'll have to hear it from TS's own mouth...or beak...whichever it is.
The regularity of nature is a scientific fact, it is incorrect not to recognize a scientific fact. Invite someone who does not believe in the law of gravity to jump from the roof, but he will not jump, because he is sure that the law of nature exists.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:12 pmOkay . . . so what about natural/physical law antirealists?Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:11 pmI believe that there are old women who do not believe in anything at all. And I believe that there are old women who believe in all old wives' tales.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:56 am
Do you not believe that there are antirealists on laws of nature or that there can be antirealists on laws of nature?
We're not talking about whether physicalism is "true" or not. We're talking about possible views that people can have.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:59 am If the dynamics are not physical, then Physicalism is untrue.
Again, a possible view is that THERE ARE NO GOVERNING DYNAMICS. You'll think that view is false, of course, but you should be capable of understanding how someone could have the view. That's all I care about.. . . namely, the governing dynamics . . .
Again, some people believe that THERE ARE NO GOVERNING DYNAMICS. Is that going in one ear and right out the other for you?But the dynamics is a "thing" that "is." And you say it's not physical...
Holy cow you really, really are incapable of reading. I said nothing like that.But it's a neat trick...you're calling whatever forces mobilize the "physical" stuff non-physical,