Philosophy Now Forum

one day they will make one of those hitler videos with you as hitler blagsy.ha ha.

They already have:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY



Science is about criticism, if you can't take the heat stay out of the Sudatenland.

Feel free to criticise this.

Blaggard wrote:In that case if you have no interest in it and can not understand it who cares?

Wasn't asking anyone to care, was just posting something that appeared to be discussing the thread. You appeared to care enough about it to find it of interest so job done.

I said people should watch it I said his conclusions were non sequiturs and I gave an article explaining why, but apparently you don't care and are bored of it.

You said "you", my mistake as I thought you meant me. Might be better if you said what you meant as it can confuse things.

Where did I say I was bored? I said it was not where my philosophical interest is anymore.

I think we are done, ...

See, after this bit you shouldn't be talking anymore.

you don't give a shit where science actually is or understand it, and I don't care to explain it over and over again to someone who neither cares nor understands it remotely. No wonder philosophy is dying.

I think I have an above average understanding of where science is and a reasonable understanding of what it can and cannot say about things. I think you mean Physics not Science as Science is roughly where its always been and thats as observation, induction and the hypothetico-deductive model.

Given that you say Physics has no idea or understanding of whats going on at the very small level, i.e. no clear metaphysical model, and has two conflicting successful theories I'm at a loss as to what you think you have explained?

The irony is that Philosophy is being taught at A-level for the first time ever and appears to becoming popular with primary and secondary schools who are beginning to take an interest as well, as the practice appears to have beneficial results for the students progress and interest in the other subjects. Whereas we appear to have a great problem with them taking an interest in the sciences and maths.

I mean do you really expect to make any impact on anything these days. Or is it all talk and no walk. You don't care, you don't remotely understand modern science. And you wonder why science doesn't care. You're just wasting their time perhaps with this laziness?

In general I don't waste Physics time at all as I've studied Philosophy and have a good understanding of where and why it appeared. As such I have little time for philosophical metaphysics based upon Physics and I'll leave metaphysical physics up to the philosophical physicists.

I have little expectation of 'making an impact upon anything these days' although I really have little idea of what you mean by this phrase?

I don't know anything about something but now you know that, please don't criticise me, I might then have to actually know something about a subject, to care, to learn what it is I am criticising, to get of my fat Hegel ridden ass, what I so willingly opine on but actually know nothing about you should agree with, pardon me while I fall asleep. What a bunch of con men you are.

lmao! And yet you threw yourself out of your pram when I pointed this out to you with respect to your knowledge of Philosophy and your opinions. Read Hegel have you?

You're moribund aren't you going through the final death throes and lambasting those who are eager to know to learn to discuss actual real world things, it's all too hard now, you know you are the last refrain, or are you? Whichever is the case Good luck with that indolent pathos. No one cares and you certainly don't. Quid pro quo.

What are you waffling on about now?

religion is back on the cards, but then I don't remotely understand any of science so I can say that, I don't know why I say that, I don't remotely understand the science, I think 30 years ago which is practically the stone age I might of had some remote idea but now pfft can't be assed. What lazy hypocritical sack of shit you are. People like you disgust me, you aren't philosophers of anything, you just have a jumbo leather backed chair sitting nobody smoking a pipe and lecturing the proletariate on former glories at breakfast and lunch and perchance if time is right when you can be assed to pull yourself out of the but cracks you have dug so deep in your arm chair generalling on past history that is antiquated an out of date, off perchance for a kip a light supper and bed before you waste peoples time discussing how big an authority you are on a science that now is redundant ten years on, 20 it is just plain wrong and 30 nothing to do with science. You're I think old in your mind set, clueless in your knowledge base, your indolent, you're worthless and you are redundant. But yet one smoking a pipe must redolantly opine on his glory days in the distant past of nowhere near where science is now.

You do like hearing yourself talk don't you and your conversation is with your usual imaginary straw men.

30 years ago my physics teacher told me they have no idea what is going on and you yourself have repeated this assertion, as such I'll go with the idea that they have no idea what is going on but it works. When the time comes that a new genius philosophical physicist, a la Einstein, appears with a comprehensible metaphysical explanation I'll pay attention.

Who cares indeed for old grandpa the simple and ancient minded person who lives in the past.

You'll be one sometime soon, for your sake lets hope that this trend for the dislike of the old is on the wane. Me, I just understand that in Philosophy some ideas are holding the test of time and one of them appears to be Kant's analysis of Reason and its relation to Reality and Metaphysics.

dude last 30 years, wake up, last 30 years, it passed you by didn't it, science moves too fast for the doddering old timer now. Dude, wake up. I think he's dead.

Is he? Then tell me why Physics cannot make a metaphysical model to understand what is going on, as there's this doddering old fart in Philosophy who makes a good case as to why not.

The uncertainty principle, the measurement problem I already said why we can't know what is going on so there's no point reiterating something I have explained a million times.

We can't atm know, will that always be the case I don't know, atm all we can do is continue to make great leaps in technology with what we can know, and hope at some point the technology can reveal more. nanotechnology, medicines administered into the cell nucleus, nanomaterials, superconductivity, nanochips: optical processors, Fusion, all look promising, all the result of quantum mechanics. Lets at least point out that you wouldn't even be reading this had they not predicted semi conductance in quantum mechanics 70 or so years ago, so it's not all that important as such to know exactly what is going on, when it comes to theory we can still make predictions without knowing the fine detail, even without it we have made some quantum leaps in practical and verified theory and technology.

ATM philosophy is fairly useless on this issue, it has got us a myriad of interpretations and lead nowhere, so how do you suppose you can solve the mystery, or are you just pointing out what we don't know, which we already know. Someone standing about saying you can't, is hardly important or even worth listening to, to be fair. I don't think that is all that worthy. Point is in 30 years, if you haven't studied the subject, you don't even know anything worth much probably, if you are going to suggest anything except you don't know. Progress has been made, we now have a better idea of where things are because of technology that lets us observe where the wave is not and make predictions from that. If the wave is not in all those places, and then it collapses we know it was where we just measured it and not where elsewhere, we can by doing this build a picture of the wave now. 30 years ago that would of been impossible. We can't visualise the wave yet or show any pictorial representation exactly, but we now have a rough sketch.

I've said this before but I like the humour:

"Boris, one day will build a telescope so large or a microscope so powerful that he will see "god", the first one to blink loses his testicles."

You do like hearing yourself talk don't you and your conversation is with your usual imaginary straw men.

I presume you think that is unusual in your neck of the academic woods. Like is not the right word I like talking about the subject, and what other people think.