Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:15 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:48 pm metaphysics ... completely and directly

Give us the correct (or most correct) interpretation of QM.

Sure, although QM isn't metaphysics per-se, it can be put in relation to metaphysics. The cutting edge of physics is a story, like this one, and like all answers to untenably complex questions, must be a simplified, metaphorical basis, a logically necessary bedrock upon which to rest other conclusions. QM is a story which explains the available evidence but it's a story based on tenable hypotheses, not logical necessity. It's a theory in the sense of best guess rather than that which best explains the evidence, which in this context on a contention between many similar theories all of which are mathematically equivalent at some level. My choice for the proper answer is the carrier wave hypothesis, which explains the evidence mathematically but also does not offend our intuitions, making it easier to develop and test new hypotheses. Concepts which defy understanding in simple, casual ways are an indication that the wrong metaphor is being applied to explain that level of reality.

I can't say with any clarity what you consider an acceptable answer but i addressed all the sides of the question that came to mind. It's all in there.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:16 pm Philosophy is important for helping us to examine our lives so we can live better.

Philosophical methods of thinking can be learned and they help to solve problems.

Learning the work of great philosophers can help us to understand the history of ideas which in turn helps us to understand the direction we are going in.

Or we could start with logical necessity and develop answers which are certain more than contingent.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:51 pm Or we could start with logical necessity and develop answers which are certain more than contingent.

Logic is contingent, not necessary.

It's invented.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:50 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:15 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:48 pm metaphysics ... completely and directly

Give us the correct (or most correct) interpretation of QM.

Sure, although QM isn't metaphysics per-se, it can be put in relation to metaphysics. The cutting edge of physics is a story, like this one, and like all answers to untenably complex questions, must be a simplified, metaphorical basis, a logically necessary bedrock upon which to rest other conclusions. QM is a story which explains the available evidence but it's a story based on tenable hypotheses, not logical necessity. It's a theory in the sense of best guess rather than that which best explains the evidence, which in this context on a contention between many similar theories all of which are mathematically equivalent at some level. My choice for the proper answer is the carrier wave hypothesis, which explains the evidence mathematically but also does not offend our intuitions, making it easier to develop and test new hypotheses. Concepts which defy understanding in simple, casual ways are an indication that the wrong metaphor is being applied to explain that level of reality.

I can't say with any clarity what you consider an acceptable answer but i addressed all the sides of the question that came to mind. It's all in there.

What do you mean by 'metaphysics' and what do you mean by 'philosophy'?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:06 pm
Why cannot one be human but not suffer in any way ?

Suffering in an inherent part of nature because our desires are all to make things different than they are and from all the infinite possible changes, only a very few will attain the state of our desires. Meanwhile, there are active agents of change all around us working to attain their own goals independently of and often counter-productively to ours. To the extent we can clarify and correlate our priorities, we can reduce suffering.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:59 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:51 pm Or we could start with logical necessity and develop answers which are certain more than contingent.

Logic is contingent, not necessary.

It's invented.

It's not invented, it's observed. Logic describes relationships and can be easily tested by applying it to a random set of situations and discovering whether it produces replicably positive results.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:48 pm It's not invented, it's observed. Logic describes relationships and can be easily tested by applying it to a random set of situations and discovering whether it produces replicably positive results.

I guess you aren't familiar with underdetermination and observational equivalence?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:13 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:48 pm It's not invented, it's observed. Logic describes relationships and can be easily tested by applying it to a random set of situations and discovering whether it produces replicably positive results.

I guess you aren't familiar with underdetermination and observational equivalence?

Underdetermination - As one of a class of words that reference the transcendent, certainty can only be a placeholder for certain Enough. All questions can be phrased as a dichotomy and answered; Am I certain enough to make decision x (or accept fact x)? If not, more information gathering is the "answer". If a level of certainty is caught between two options, a settling of one's priorities will clear it right up. Certainty is always a range, btw, except by logical necessity.

Observational equivalence - A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:30 pm Underdetermination - As one of a class of words that reference the transcendent, certainty can only be a placeholder for certain Enough. All questions can be phrased as a dichotomy and answered; Am I certain enough to make decision x (or accept fact x)? If not, more information gathering is the "answer". If a level of certainty is caught between two options, a settling of one's priorities will clear it right up. Certainty is always a range, btw, except by logical necessity.

Observational equivalence - A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Observational equivalence makes all the difference in the world.

If your certainty is expressed as a mathematical function, then it means an infinite number of mathematical functions can describe a finite dataset of observations.

All roads lead to falsification being necessary. Validation-only leads to truisms hence the phrase not even wrong.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:32 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:30 pm Underdetermination - As one of a class of words that reference the transcendent, certainty can only be a placeholder for certain Enough. All questions can be phrased as a dichotomy and answered; Am I certain enough to make decision x (or accept fact x)? If not, more information gathering is the "answer". If a level of certainty is caught between two options, a settling of one's priorities will clear it right up. Certainty is always a range, btw, except by logical necessity.

Observational equivalence - A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Observational equivalence makes all the difference in the world.

If your certainty is expressed as a mathematical function, then it means an infinite number of mathematical functions can describe a finite dataset of observations.

All roads lead to falsification being necessary. Validation-only leads to truisms hence the phrase not even wrong.

Falsification is not possible for every contention, but the contention isn't the truth of anything in the story per-se, despite that it is available by logical necessity for each point, but that together they offer a solution to all questions in philosophy in a logically and empirically consistent manner. It would only take a single exception to anything in the story to show the contention to be false, but so far, to the extent they've tried to understand at all, no one has. What standard of falsification do you want? There are only two methods to verify contentions, logical necessity and empirical measurement, and this one is logically necessary all the way down, as well as being compatible with the best (non-cutting-edge) understandings of science.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:22 pm

A wrote:
What does philosophy mean to you ?

What is there in philosophy EXACTLY to be studied ?

Philosophy to me is the love of wisdom through the eternal study of subjects that do not necessarily have definitive answers to them
Subjects such as Metaphysics - Ethics - Consciousness - Existence - and subjects comparitively more rigorous such as Logic - Language

I have asked you this clarifying question before, and you did not clarify nor answer it then, but I will try again.

Why do you just put the letter 'A' instead of the word "age" in my quotes? (When you do this I do not receive a notification that my posts have been responded to, and therefore I might miss reading your reply and miss being able to respond to you.

Anyway, to me, the 'love-of-wisdom' is very, very different to the 'love-of-wisdom', to you.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:22 pm

A wrote:
FULL knowledge ALREADY EXISTS

But most people do NOT look past ones own perspective of things

OF COURSE full knowledge is possible to be known by one person
But just as OBVIOUS is FULL knowledge is ALL knowledge that is known or has been known up to any particular point along the evolutionary line

To me full knowledge is the totality of ALL knowledge that will ever be known by intelligent beings
So I do not use the description to mean only the totality of knowledge at any one time in existence

Firstly I meant to write 'impossible' instead of 'possible'.

Now, what knowledge is there besides the knowledge which you say can not be known by intelligent beings?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:22 pm Unless I had read your post it would not have automatically occurred to me that full knowledge could mean something else

A great deal of what I say has NOT YET necessarily automatically occurred. This is because it NEVER automatically occurred to me previously, either.

By the way, just about EVERY thing can (and does?) mean something else, to someone "else".

If there is a perception that what a word means to one means the same to "another", then that is just a misconception. See when people ASSUME that what they say, and mean, means to the same or exact same to "another", then this is WHERE confusion and conflict originate from.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:22 pm And this is why explanation and clarification are very important factors when it comes to communication on forums like this

Yes I agree.

And, explanation and clarification can only be given and provided AFTER what 'needs' to be explained and clarified becomes known. For example, if I was to say; 'The meaning of Life is ALREADY KNOWN' or 'Who 'I' Truly am is ALREADY KNOWN as well', or 'World peace' can begin soon enough', then what else needs to be explained or clarified? i am certainly not in a position to KNOW what does and what does not need to be explained and clarified to each and every reader, on forums like this.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:33 pm >I CERTAINLY DO NOT see ANY thing to be 'solved' NOR 'studied' in 'philosophy'.

"Every deep and meaningful question" is certainly Philosophy, yes?

NO. To me, the word 'phil-o-sophy' just means the love-of-wisdom. Every human being is born with this love, and therefore EVERY human being is born naturally a philosopher.

Every deep and meaning question is just a deep and meaningful question, which, to me, is certainly NOT 'philosophy', as just clearly demonstrated.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:33 pm We know epistemology and metaphysics are philosophy for certain,

Who exactly is the 'we' who supposedly know this, "for certain"?

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:33 pm and that's what this story addresses particularly.

If this story addresses, particularly, 'epistemology and metaphysics', which are supposedly philosophy, then how does this story supposedly address 'this'?

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:33 pm How to have a good life is a contingent question that must be answered only by individuals but it can be organised and put into perspective.

If you say so. By the way, which definition of 'contingent' are you using here?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 12:10 pm >I CERTAINLY DO NOT see ANY thing to be 'solved' NOR 'studied' in 'philosophy'

Why exactly are you here?