Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:56 am

Theoeretically, it could depart from a non-materialist ontology, but it wouldn't work, it can't work, it has never worked.

This really reflect ignorance on your part and it is insulting your own intelligence to hold on to such a view.
What works with Science as I had repeated many times is whether the scientific conclusions are processed via the necessary requirements of the scientific framework, is accepted by the relevant peers and more so is useful to humanity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:49 am Not every scientist agree the Moon existed prior to humans when deliberated within various various perspectives of Quantum Mechanics. Note Schrodinger's Cat for example. In a way there are many scientists who adopt the idealist view rather than the philosophical realists' views.

Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment to illustrate a point about measurement in Quantum Mechanics, and it applies to the microscopic level of physical particles, not related in any sense with any macroscopic observation such as the Moon.

Again you are ignorant to hold this view.
What is most realistic is the micro state of reality not the macro.
This is why Physicists are so focused on searching for what is the ultimate particle that grounds all of macro reality.

Pfft.. Lucanor is even more ignorant about science than VA

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am
If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.

Clearly you have no acceptance of the daily, minute by minute, year by year force of INDUCTIVE evidence.
Given that, it would be absurd, (like pearls before swine) to try to prove anything to you.
And yet by your very actions, again and again you contradict yourself by sucumbing to the truth of a shared reality by answering people's posts.
No one needs to prove anything to you since your actions prove it to yourself, whether or not you are the courage to accept that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:56 am Do you understand Meno's Paradox in the first place and the realistic philosophical issues behind it?

It's rubbish.
If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary. If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible

Refuted by - I know what I am looking for, I just forgot where I put it.
And: It is perfectly possible for find a thing you never had. It's called discovery.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:56 am It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.

Claims about what's true, claims about what we know, have no implication for absolute certainty.

How many times does this need to be repeated before one finally gets it?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:54 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:56 am It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.

Claims about what's true, claims about what we know, have no implication for absolute certainty.

How many times does this need to be repeated before one finally gets it?

Is this an absolutely certain claim? If not it is relative and subject to potential falsifiability under a new context.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:02 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:54 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:56 am It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.

Claims about what's true, claims about what we know, have no implication for absolute certainty.

How many times does this need to be repeated before one finally gets it?

Is this an absolutely certain claim? If not it is relative and subject to potential falsifiability under a new context.

No, it's not absolutely certain. That's just the idea. It doesn't need to be absolutely certain for us to say it's true and that we know it. And sure, it could turn out to be false.

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=513171 time=1623174498 user_id=12582]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=513160 time=1623168162 user_id=14533]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=513140 time=1623156853 user_id=12582]


Claims about what's true, claims about what we know, have no implication for absolute certainty.

How many times does this need to be repeated before one finally gets it?
[/quote]

Is this an absolutely certain claim? If not it is relative and subject to potential falsifiability under a new context.
[/quote]

No, it's not absolutely certain. That's just the idea. It doesn't need to be absolutely certain for us to say it's true and that we know it. And sure, it could turn out to be false.
[/quote]

Transcendent, ultimate certainty isn't even a useful concept as it's indistinguishable from fiction. Certain Enough is all certain can be or needs to be.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:51 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:48 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:02 pm Is this an absolutely certain claim? If not it is relative and subject to potential falsifiability under a new context.

No, it's not absolutely certain. That's just the idea. It doesn't need to be absolutely certain for us to say it's true and that we know it. And sure, it could turn out to be false.

Transcendent, ultimate certainty isn't even a useful concept as it's indistinguishable from fiction. Certain Enough is all certain can be or needs to be.

This is a paradox as you are making an absolute statement about certainty.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:48 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:02 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:54 pm

Claims about what's true, claims about what we know, have no implication for absolute certainty.

How many times does this need to be repeated before one finally gets it?

Is this an absolutely certain claim? If not it is relative and subject to potential falsifiability under a new context.

No, it's not absolutely certain. That's just the idea. It doesn't need to be absolutely certain for us to say it's true and that we know it. And sure, it could turn out to be false.

If it is true then it is absolute under a given context.

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=513184 time=1623176407 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=513172 time=1623174702 user_id=15238]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=513171 time=1623174498 user_id=12582]


No, it's not absolutely certain. That's just the idea. It doesn't need to be absolutely certain for us to say it's true and that we know it. And sure, it could turn out to be false.
[/quote]

Transcendent, ultimate certainty isn't even a useful concept as it's indistinguishable from fiction. Certain Enough is all certain can be or needs to be.
[/quote]

This is a paradox as you are making an absolute statement about certainty.
[/quote]

Establishing an upper or lower limit of ignorance isn't a paradox.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:20 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:51 pm Transcendent, ultimate certainty isn't even a useful concept as it's indistinguishable from fiction. Certain Enough is all certain can be or needs to be.

This is a paradox as you are making an absolute statement about certainty.

Establishing an upper or lower limit of ignorance isn't a paradox.

But making an absolute claim that absolutes do not exist is a paradox.

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=513190 time=1623177433 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=513188 time=1623176548 user_id=15238]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=513184 time=1623176407 user_id=14533]


This is a paradox as you are making an absolute statement about certainty.
[/quote]

Establishing an upper or lower limit of ignorance isn't a paradox.
[/quote]

But making an absolute claim that absolutes do not exist is a paradox.
[/quote]

We can be certain enough "for all intents and purposes".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:20 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:48 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:02 pm

Is this an absolutely certain claim? If not it is relative and subject to potential falsifiability under a new context.

No, it's not absolutely certain. That's just the idea. It doesn't need to be absolutely certain for us to say it's true and that we know it. And sure, it could turn out to be false.

If it is true then it is absolute under a given context.

What in the world does that mean?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:35 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:20 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:48 pm

No, it's not absolutely certain. That's just the idea. It doesn't need to be absolutely certain for us to say it's true and that we know it. And sure, it could turn out to be false.

If it is true then it is absolute under a given context.

What in the world does that mean?

That under the context repeating the same results or definitions always occur. The question is if the context really can repeat.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:38 pm That under the context repeating the same results or definitions always occur.

What?

That doesn't really read as English.