Philosophy Now Forum

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.

Naturally, that's how confirmation bias works.

If you don't want to falsify your own theory, nobody can make you.

Either you are a scientist or you aren't.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:07 amIf it has to be a force, then it can't possibly be gravity. Because gravity is not a force.

You're making the same mistake as Immanuel Can, in that both of you attribute particular ontological qualities to what are abstract nouns. A force is whatever changes the acceleration or shape of and object, basically any change that can be measured in Newtons; it is not a 'thing' in a material sense.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:07 amGeneral Relativity itself tells you that. Gravitational fields don't exist. Gravity is an illusion.

General Relativity is just one of the ideas that account for the acceleration that massive objects experience. A gravitational field is another abstract noun to which you are attributing ontological qualities, when for the purposes of science a gravitational field is simply anywhere that an object will experience an acceleration, as in it will measurably change velocity or direction. Like gravity and force, a field is not a material thing.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:07 amIf it has to be a force, then you are desperately trying to default to a Newtonian world-view. But... you said that's falsified?

Here you are mixing up Newton's worldview and his mathematics. It is his mathematics which is falsified. His general approach was that physics is about the maths rather than what qualities to attribute to abstract nouns. That is still the dominant approach, hence the dictum 'Shut up and calculate'.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:11 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:18 pm If you study Descartes you will see that modern theories of existence are based on the idea of ontic substances. The two ontic substances that Descartes believed to exist were separate and theoretically separable substances.

No version of monism holds that there be separate substances.

That's one level of abstraction down from where I am viewing this.

All philosophers dualise philosophical thought into "ontology" and "epistemology".

And so even though in the context of "ontology" we talk about one or many substances, we are already in a dualistic framework of thinking.

We have separated mind/brain/thinking (epistemology) from mater/substances/physicality (ontology).

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:18 pm To get a handle on neutral monism, think of modern approach to 'mental' illness such as schizophrenia. The patient views her percepts subjectively i.e. mind stuff/ symptoms. The modern clinician views the patient objectively i.e. physical stuff/ signs. Two aspects of the same Mary Ann. Mary Ann's brain-mind is the one entity. One entity perceived from the points of view of private mind and of publicly observable body. Not two entities like according to Descartes and traditional theists.

Agreed. Dualists draw the line in the wrong place.

The problem with thought experiments like this is that any conversation between two people (such as what is happening now) is necessarily happening in a dualistic framework. To be in a "monistic" framework would require to erase the distinguish between you and I.

Yes I see. I had not thought of thou/me as a further level of dualism. It is an example what I have been calling an "attitude".
It is impossibe for anyone except hypothetically God to erase the distinction between you and I. Moreover if that distinction were to be removed from human experience men could not learn from each other or from any other bits of their environment;relativity reaches into everything.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:14 amIf you don't want to falsify your own theory, nobody can make you.

The trick with confirmation bias is to be aware of your own, so that others don't have to point it out to you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:14 amEither you are a scientist or you aren't.

What qualities must someone have to qualify as a scientist?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:36 am You're making the same mistake as Immanuel Can, in that both of you attribute particular ontological qualities to what are abstract nouns. A force is whatever changes the acceleration or shape of and object, basically any change that can be measured in Newtons; it is not a 'thing' in a material sense.

I am not making any such mistakes. You just believe that I am.

You can't say "a force is whatever changes the acceleration"... without being explicit about the theory/reference frame from which you are measuring "acceleration".

Newton distinguishes gravity from acceleration, Einstein says gravity and acceleration are the same thing. Thus gravity is an illusion.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:36 am General Relativity is just one of the ideas that account for the acceleration that massive objects experience.

Yes, but acceleration with respect to what?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:36 am A gravitational field is another abstract noun to which you are attributing ontological qualities, when for the purposes of science a gravitational field is simply anywhere that an object will experience an acceleration, as in it will measurably change velocity or direction. Like gravity and force, a field is not a material thing.

You are indeed confused. Within each respective theory "forces" and "fields" are reified in the Mathematics. And they are represented (modeled) by different mathematical objects.

And their interpretation thus differ because of the different ontological assumptions of each model.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:36 am Here you are mixing up Newton's worldview and his mathematics. It is his mathematics which is falsified. His general approach was that physics is about the maths rather than what qualities to attribute to abstract nouns. That is still the dominant approach, hence the dictum 'Shut up and calculate'.

You have some fundamental misunderstanding of what Mathematics expresses.

Newton's model-theoretic assumptions/definitions were encoded in his equations. So the semantics of "acceleration" in Newton's mathematics is not the semantics of "acceleration" in Einstein's mathematics. Because they assume a different geometry.

Subsequently the English abstract noun "acceleration" means one thing in a Newtonian universe, and another thing in Einstein's universe. In Einstein's universe "acceleration" is synonymous with "gravity".

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:45 am What qualities must someone have to qualify as a scientist?

Not promoting any theories beyond falsification would be a good start?

The moment you do that you've consciously chosen confirmation bias. An interpretation - a Philosophy.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:47 amI am not making any such mistakes. You just believe that I am.

I'm referring to the ones you have written down.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:47 amYou can't say "a force is whatever changes the acceleration"... without being explicit about the theory/reference frame from which you are measuring "acceleration". The term has different meanings in each theory.

Change in direction or velocity means the same in any theory. Acceleration just happens to be measurably different from different reference frames.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:47 amYou are assuming something and you don't even know what.

I see this has now been deleted. Rather than waste my time responding to criticisms you retract as I am responding to them, do you have any arguments that you think will stick?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:19 am I'm referring to the ones you have written down.

They aren't mistakes. You are just interpreting them that way.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:19 am Change in direction or velocity means the same in any theory.

No they don't.

Both direction and velocity are always with respect to the coordinate system of the theory. In Einstein's theory you are working with geodesics. In Newton's system you are not.

Mathematically, you are using different metrics for "direction" and "velocity". The meaning of those terms depends on the topology.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:19 am Acceleration just happens to be measurably different from different reference frames.

Different "reference frames" ARE "different theories". It's your interpretative model.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:19 am I see this has now been deleted. Rather than waste my time responding to criticisms you retract as I am responding to them, do you have any arguments that you think will stick?

If you aren't a scientist - none.

And if you don't understand that the correct interpretation of a theory is formalized in the Mathemathical meaning of the terms - none again.

We are probably talking right past each other, so here is an experiment to resolve the matter.
With respect to this definition do you understand why this is a circle?

For the empirical record: I expect you to disagree. e.g I don't think that you think this is a circle.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:26 am

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:19 amI'm referring to the ones you have written down.

They aren't mistakes. You are just interpreting them that way.

They're mistakes

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:26 am

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:19 amChange in direction or velocity means the same in any theory.

No they don't.

Yes they do.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:26 amBoth direction and velocity are always with respect to the coordinate system of the theory. In Einstein's theory you are working with geodesics. In Newton's system you are not.

They are just different ways of accounting for the same data.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:26 amMathematically, you are using different metrics for "direction" and "velocity". The meaning of those terms depends on the topology.

And there is no difference to the phenomena they explain. Which metric you use depends on all sorts of factors, all of which being equal, the choice will be aesthetic.

We're back to you being needy. Skepdick, you are much cleverer than me, and my ego is crushed.
Now, do you have anything worthwhile to contribute?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:47 am They're mistakes

What observation would falsify your hypothesis?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:47 am Yes they do.

What observation would falsify your hypothesis?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:47 am They are just different ways of accounting for the same data.

We aren't accounting for data - we are interpreting data.

That's what theories are for.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:47 am And there is no difference to the phenomena they explain.

They explain a falling apple.

The difference is in the explanation.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:47 am Which metric you use depends on all sorts of factors, all of which being equal, the choice will be aesthetic.

Which metric you use depends on your theory.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:47 am Now, do you have anything worthwhile to contribute?

If you can't recognise worth on basis other than aesthetics - nothing whatsoever.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:00 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:47 amWhich metric you use depends on all sorts of factors, all of which being equal, the choice will be aesthetic.

Which metric you use depends on your theory.

All things being equal, how do you choose your theory?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:08 am

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?

No. But there's more than a doubt that you know what it really is. There's your own confession to that fact....which makes sense, because if physicists and cosmologists don't know, how would you?

Anyway, I have to ask you about this feature of your theory: what makes you confident that others are only fooled about being genuinely rational, and are actually merely aesthetic, but your own judgment of that is rational? How did you get to be an exception to your own rule?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:00 pm

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

No. But there's more than a doubt that you know what it really is. There's your own confession to that fact....which makes sense, because if physicists and cosmologists don't know, how would you?

You started that sentence by pointing out my confession that I don't know. Clearly I am not going to claim I know something that physicists and cosmologists don't. Why would you ask such a question?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:00 pmAnyway, I have to ask you about this feature of your theory: what makes you confident that others are only fooled about being genuinely rational, and are actually merely aesthetic, but your own judgment of that is rational? How did you get to be an exception to your own rule?

It isn't my rule, it is one of the most important lessons that a study of philosophy teaches and one of the first. The parable of Socrates and the Oracle at Delphi is told in Plato's Apology, the story of Socrates last days on Earth before he was executed. The message was simple: it is wise to admit what you don't know. Then Socrates died for our intellectual hubris, so that we don't have to. Pointing out that apples fall to the ground, and that something makes them do so does not make me exceptional. The mass of the apple, the mass of the planet and the acceleration are all correlated. Given any two, I can give you the third, but you are absolutely right; I cannot tell you what the mechanism is. But as Socrates showed, there is no shame in ignorance; it's pride that is a deadly sin.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:55 pm You started that sentence by pointing out my confession that I don't know. Clearly I am not going to claim I know something that physicists and cosmologists don't. Why would you ask such a question?

Have you heard the term "rhetorical" before?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:00 pmAnyway, I have to ask you about this feature of your theory: what makes you confident that others are only fooled about being genuinely rational, and are actually merely aesthetic, but your own judgment of that is rational? How did you get to be an exception to your own rule?

It isn't my rule, it is one of the most important lessons that a study of philosophy teaches and one of the first.

But you get to be the lone exception to it? How'd you manage that?

As C.S. Lewis has so aptly pointed out, a man employing reason to debunk the use of reason is like a man sitting on a tree branch, and sawing it off between himself and the trunk: if he succeeds, he fails.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:03 pmHave you heard the term "rhetorical" before?

Of course. Why would you ask such a question?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:03 pm

It isn't my rule, it is one of the most important lessons that a study of philosophy teaches and one of the first.

But you get to be the lone exception to it? How'd you manage that?

That is a loaded question; I haven't claimed to be an exception.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:03 pmAs C.S. Lewis has so aptly pointed out, a man employing reason to debunk the use of reason is like a man sitting on a tree branch, and sawing it off between himself and the trunk: if he succeeds, he fails.

It's a weak analogy, but you clearly find it aesthetically pleasing. To be honest, I really don't care for these idiotic 'gotcha' arguments, but once you're in, you're in. We can attempt a civilised conversation about things we happen to disagree about, or we can try and make the other look foolish. You choose.