Philosophy Now Forum

"new" nature of existence... knowing the exact position of every electron...

...

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.

-- Heraclitus

new?

-Imp

Impenitent,

"new" nature of existence... knowing the exact position of every electron...

Knowing the exact position of every electron...is a subject now agreed to be scientific thinking. At the time of Heraclitus his thinking about electrons was new, for what reason would you call the ideas of Heraclitus new today?

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.

Chuckle, the new man who steps in a new river is probably wondering if this is the best place to cross.

We have "new ideas" and know; the participants who identify with Philosophy, merely to enhance their self-esteem, call out the names of philosophers. Why not change the "way" you satisfy your need for self-esteem by thinking to advance philosophical knowledge. That is the way Heraclitus was attempting to satisfy his.


Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

wleg wrote:Impenitent,

"new" nature of existence... knowing the exact position of every electron...

Knowing the exact position of every electron...is a subject now agreed to be scientific thinking. At the time of Heraclitus his thinking about electrons was new, for what reason would you call the ideas of Heraclitus new today?


tell us exactly where every electron is in everything you describe, or you have not described it fully... Ludwig had the same problem...

new scientific thinking indeed...

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.

Chuckle, the new man who steps in a new river is probably wondering if this is the best place to cross.

We have "new ideas" and know; the participants who identify with Philosophy, merely to enhance their self-esteem, call out the names of philosophers. Why not change the "way" you satisfy your need for self-esteem by thinking to advance philosophical knowledge. That is the way Heraclitus was attempting to satisfy his.


Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

your "new" ideas are not new, but you would only "know" that if you read and understood philosophical history

finis

-Imp

Chuckle,,Impenitent, I confess, I do not have the mental astuteness or energy to reply intelligently to your replies misunderstanding my posts.

tell us exactly where every electron is in everything you describe, or you have not described it fully... Ludwig had the same problem... new scientific thinking indeed...

This is a Philosophy Forum, we're not looking to construct scientific explanations. It appears you are lost, go here http://www.thescienceforum.com/ .

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

wleg wrote:Knowing the exact position of every electron...is a subject now agreed to be scientific thinking.

Knowing the exact position of any electron...is a subject now agreed to be clouded by uncertainty over it's momentum. Has been since Heisenberg. One thing you should consider when you dismiss thinkers other than yourself, as Descartes said: "One cannot conceive of anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another." That was true even in Roman times. Cicero: "Nothing so absurd can be said that some philosopher has not said it."
Like I said, you should read Aristotle's Categories. I think he did what you are trying to do two and a half millennia ago.
Merry Christmas.

Uwot,
The position of electrons doesn't concern philosophers today, or me, Impenitent brought it up as his strategy to discredit any effort to advance philosophical knowledge.

Aristotle’s Categories was his attempt to understand how knowledge is constructed in syntax by the use of subject and predicate by identifying every thing that can be a subject or predicate. Unfortunately, Aristotle never understood how the subject and predicate are related to the "existence" of each other to construct knowledge. Philosophers have never constructed a comprehensive definition of "knowledge" grounded on understanding the nature of the “existence” that subjects and predicates have to each other. Why else could so much confusion and contradiction still exist about the nature of "knowledge" after twenty-five centuries? The only possible reason is the failure of Aristotle and all the other philosophers to construct a comprehensive definition of “existence” to know how “knowledge” is constructed.

Will you answer this simple question: How is it possible to construct philosophical knowledge of “knowledge” itself without first understanding the nature of “existence” itself?

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

wleg wrote:Uwot,
The position of electrons doesn't concern philosophers today, or me, Impenitent brought it up as his strategy to discredit any effort to advance philosophical knowledge.

Aristotle’s Categories was his attempt to understand how knowledge is constructed in syntax by the use of subject and predicate by identifying every thing that can be a subject or predicate. Unfortunately, Aristotle never understood how the subject and predicate are related to the "existence" of each other to construct knowledge. Philosophers have never constructed a comprehensive definition of "knowledge" grounded on understanding the nature of the “existence” that subjects and predicates have to each other. Why else could so much confusion and contradiction still exist about the nature of "knowledge" after twenty-five centuries? The only possible reason is the failure of Aristotle and all the other philosophers to construct a comprehensive definition of “existence” to know how “knowledge” is constructed.

Will you answer this simple question: How is it possible to construct philosophical knowledge of “knowledge” itself without first understanding the nature of “existence” itself?

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

As I understand it you want to find an 'existence' relationship between subject and predicates. The actual relationship can be explained in terms of a linguistic framework. However, I think you are also saying that this is inadequate because it doesn't actually explain 'existence'.

I also think you are saying that because of this inadequacy we need to take it a step further and explain the relationship between subject and predicate in terms of of a methodology that transcends, or goes beyond the rules of grammar.

A different way of saying this would be that you are wanting to explain the logical relationship between subject and predicate that doesn't necessarily depend on subject/predicate rules.


Is this correct?

Ginkgo,
All we are dealing with here is attempting to construct a comprehensive definition of “existence” itself. That is all; once we have a comprehensive definition we can understand how subjects and predicates construct knowledge.

Example of a comprehensive definition: The existence of a thing is a construct of its unique attributes. The argument that supports this definition is; a thing is itself and not some other thing because it has different attributes from the attributes of any other thing.

Remember the ‘thing’ we are talking about at the moment is the abstract concept “existence” itself, nothing else. It appears difficult for some to keep focused.

I have constructed an argument that supports a tentative definition. The field is wide open for anyone else to construct a more comprehensive definition supported by a more logical argument.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Not this one.

Nor this.

'Ere yer go:

wleg wrote:Unfortunately, Aristotle never understood how the subject and predicate are related to the "existence" of each other to construct knowledge.

Nor do I. What is "existence" in quotation marks and how is it different from existence without quotation marks? You have said:

wleg wrote: DEFINITION OF EXISTENCE: “The existence of a thing is a construct of its attributes.”

You cannot build knowledge of the sort you appear to desire on such a foundation, because if true, it means that attributes are constructs of their attributes, which are constructs of their attributes and so on ad infinitum. By that definition, attributes don't exist; in other words, there is nothing that you can base knowledge on.

wleg wrote:Philosophers have never constructed a comprehensive definition of "knowledge" grounded on understanding the nature of the “existence” that subjects and predicates have to each other.

Probably, because they have been too busy trying to construct an understanding of existence grounded on the relationship that subjects and predicates have to each other.

wleg wrote:Why else could so much confusion and contradiction still exist about the nature of "knowledge" after twenty-five centuries?

It isn't confusion, it's disagreement. People think differently. As Ginkgo pointed out a while back, there are rationalists and empiricists. It might help you to think of mathematicians and physicists.
Mathematicians manipulate symbols in such a way that proves things about relationships between symbols.
Physicists know things because they can measure them.

Amongst philosophers, there are some who think you can apply the sort of reasoning used by mathematicians to concepts and arrive at proof. They are the rationalists. Among them are philosophers keen to use reason to prove the existence of god using some brand of ontological argument, the latest edition of Philosophy Now is crawling with them.
Then there are philosophers who think that the only way to arrive at knowledge of the real world is to look at it. They are the empiricists.
Philosophy and science are graveyards for ideas about the world based on rationalism. The advantage to empiricism is that it doesn't commit it's adherents to any belief that might be demolished by observations; the downside is that you have to accept that you don't know anything.

wleg wrote:The only possible reason is the failure of Aristotle and all the other philosophers to construct a comprehensive definition of “existence” to know how “knowledge” is constructed.

I'm sure, given time, you could think of other reasons. Anyway; one feature of empiricism is that knowledge does not depend on a definition of existence. As Berkeley showed, the nature of existence is irrelevant. The only thing we know is that phenomena exist. Any hypothesis that claims to account for the phenomena is metaphysics, including the belief that there is a real world that corresponds to those phenomena. It could be that the world we experience is a bunch of ideas in the mind of Berkeley's god, it could the deceptions of Descartes' evil daemon, it could be Susskind's holographic projection from the edge of the universe, it could be a dream. None of those hypotheses make the slightest difference to what we perceive. As Kant pointed out, you know the phenomenon, you don't know the noumenon.

wleg wrote:Will you answer this simple question: How is it possible to construct philosophical knowledge of “knowledge” itself without first understanding the nature of “existence” itself?

16 years of corresponding on philosophy forums should have taught you that it is not a simple question; it is loaded with your assumptions and interpretations. Still: a mathematician knows that 2+2=4 and while I accept that some people dispute even this, it's truth value is independent of existence. 2 oranges and 2 oranges makes 4 oranges whether or not oranges exist. By contrast, a physicist can count his oranges and know how many they have. A philosopher can pick one or other type of knowledge, or try for some Kantian synthesis, but at the end of the day, the nature of existence is nothing to do with knowing.

Uwot,
chuckle,,a 3X posting is confusion.

wleg wrote:Uwot,
chuckle,,a 3X posting is confusion.

Hmm! Either I or my computer have gone mad.

Then there are philosophers who think that the only way to arrive at knowledge of the real world is to look at it.

Except that these philosophers, being philosophers, don't look at the real world, but at ideas about the real world. This might be compared to looking at a photo album full of pictures of a friend, instead of at the real life living breathing friend, a choosing of the symbolic over the real.

---------

TOOL BIAS: Philosophers, being philosophers, typically suffer from a fatal case of tool bias. That is, their real goal is to do philosophy, not look at the real world.

For philosophers typically the real world is a means to the end of doing philosophy, not philosophy being a means to the end of looking at the real world as is typically claimed.

Philosophy is their favorite tool, and they construct their investigation to ensure it is the tool being used, and if the investigation should thus suffer, so be it, who cares.

---------

Looking at the real world, instead of ideas about the real world, is something else entirely. This leads not to knowledge, not to symbols, but to real world experience. Philosophers aren't too interested in real world experience, as it can't be argued about.

Felasco wrote:Except that these philosophers, being philosophers, don't look at the real world, but at ideas about the real world. This might be compared to looking at a photo album full of pictures of a friend, instead of at the real life living breathing friend, a choosing of the symbolic over the real.

That's the point that Kant made. This philosopher, being a philosopher is perfectly aware that he is looking at phenomena rather than the ding an sich. Some of us know about tool bias an' all. It's rarely fatal.