Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:12 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:58 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:39 pm
What are the sub-atomic binaries?

The binary switching of events that make up what we perceive as atoms. (..and then apples)

Ahan, I thought you are talking about the minds and their bodies, atoms. But why binary switching of events instead of different events instead.

It's back to that thing we had a little chat about in another thread (or two) - at THE most finite scale of reality - either an event occurs or it doesn't. It is my theory, that at this level (from experience) that God\'God' constructs our reality.

Again, Zenos paradox - eventually one draws down to the finite - event or not.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:58 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:12 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:58 pm

The binary switching of events that make up what we perceive as atoms. (..and then apples)

Ahan, I thought you are talking about the minds and their bodies, atoms. But why binary switching of events instead of different events instead.

It's back to that thing we had a little chat about in another thread (or two) - at THE most finite scale of reality - either an event occurs or it doesn't. It is my theory, that at this level (from experience) that God\'God' constructs our reality.

Again, Zenos paradox - eventually one draws down to the finite - event or not.

Ahan, Plank length and time. That must be very fast and detailed.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:06 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:58 pmGravity is not a theory.

And yet it is.

Either you think my definition is wrong, or you think my argument is wrong. My definition of theory is any proposition for which there remains reasonable doubt. My argument is that there is no reasonable doubt that gravity exists. You might have a good argument for why either of those is wrong, or you might simply not like them. Which is my original point.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:21 pmLike you said. It doesn't matter what you call it. God, or Allah, or "The Explanation of Reality"

All that matters is that the concept exists in your head.

In your mind there is "reality" and there is "its explanation" (called many different names, by many different theists).

It implies nothing. It's simply true.

I think you are rare, possibly unique if you think that the names God or Allah imply nothing. And if believing that this moment has a backstory makes me a theist in your lexicon, so be it. It makes communication laboured, but at least explains in part why you think I'm so bad at it.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:22 pm I think you are rare, possibly unique if you think that the names God or Allah imply nothing.

Any implication is at best "aesthetic" as you like to say.

The God and Allah theories are observationally equivalent/underdetermined.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:15 pm My argument is that there is no reasonable doubt that gravity exists.

You don't know what gravity is.

You know that something exists. You know what that something seems to do. You know we have consented to label it "gravity." But you haven't the foggiest idea what it really is. There is more that a reasonable doubt that you know what it is you're trying to identify...in fact, you admit yourself that you don't know what it is.

I'd say that even by your definition, that's a "theory."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:31 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:15 pm My argument is that there is no reasonable doubt that gravity exists.

You don't know what gravity is.

You know that something exists. You know what that something seems to do. You know we have consented to label it "gravity." But you haven't the foggiest idea what it really is. There is more that a reasonable doubt that you know what it is you're trying to identify...in fact, you admit yourself that you don't know what it is.

I'd say that even by your definition, that's a "theory."

We don't know the quantum gravity yet. But we are sure that the electromagnetic force is the result of the exchange of photons between two particles.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:31 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:15 pmMy argument is that there is no reasonable doubt that gravity exists.

"You don't know what gravity is."

Gravity is the force that acts between massive bodies in my book.
"You know that something exists."
Yes. I know that a force that acts between bodies exists.
"You know what that something seems to do."
General Relativity is extremely accurate, so we know very nearly exactly what gravity does.
"You know we have consented to label it "gravity.""
True.
"But you haven't the foggiest idea what it really is."
It really is the force that acts between massive bodies.
"There is more that a reasonable doubt that you know what it is you're trying to identify...in fact, you admit yourself that you don't know what it is."
I know precisely what gravity is. It is the force that acts between massive bodies that we have consented to label "gravity".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:31 pmI'd say that even by your definition, that's a "theory."

It isn't. By my definition, it is the hypotheses that attempt to explain the cause of gravity that are theoretical. You a free to disagree with my definition of theory on aesthetic grounds; or you might not like my reasoning, but if you have nothing against bog standard informal logic, the argument is valid.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:24 pmAny implication is at best "aesthetic" as you like to say.

The God and Allah theories are observationally equivalent/underdetermined.

I completely agree, but both generally make claims of a sort which go way beyond my thesis that this moment has a backstory. Granted that's just a theory and someone might wish to offer the opinion that this moment is the beginning of time, or perhaps is the only time, but I like my theory better.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:31 pm]I'd say that even by your definition, that's a "theory."

It isn't.

Okay. You have the right to be wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:17 amOkay. You have the right to be wrong.

My point is that you have every right to think that on aesthetic grounds. Given that you can't say why gravity is theoretical, it must be because you just like the idea.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:33 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:17 amOkay. You have the right to be wrong.

My point is that you have every right to think that on aesthetic grounds.

You have the right to be wrong about that, too. I can explain my rationale; I can't make you rational.

It is curious to me, though, that you're so contemptuous of others' thinking processes that you regard them as merely aesthetic, but somehow suppose you manage to exempt yourself from your own condemnation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:47 amI can explain my rationale.

Is there any reasonable doubt that there is a force that acts between massive bodies?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:22 am I completely agree, but both generally make claims of a sort which go way beyond my thesis that this moment has a backstory. Granted that's just a theory and someone might wish to offer the opinion that this moment is the beginning of time, or perhaps is the only time, but I like my theory better.

OK. But your theory is not even wrong. Why do you like it?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:08 am Is there any reasonable doubt that there is a force that acts between massive bodies?

Yes. Necessarily. Even in your own mind.

If it has to be a force, then it can't possibly be gravity. Because gravity is not a force.

General Relativity itself tells you that. Gravitational fields don't exist. Gravity is an illusion.

If it has to be a force, then you are desperately trying to default to a Newtonian world-view. But... you said that's falsified?