Why not nothing?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Why not nothing?

Post #1

Post by shnarkle »

It's an old question. One that Heidegger and others have puzzled over for centuries. We can ask these why questions about anything and everything, but when it comes to "why No-thing" there is no possible answer to the question. So why is it still a meaningful question? If there is nothing to ask about, then what is the meaning of why?

Perhaps we could say it is a contradictory question. How can there be a why to ask a why when the why asks nothing? After all, nothing has no reason to be what it isn't. An empty thought is not an answer. If nothingness were the answer, there would be no question and no one to ask the question in the first place.

However, when the question is put to Being, Nothingness can be assumed as a real possibility. These formal extrapolations need not be sustained by a real state of affairs. This suggests a further inquiry into why or how there can be thoughts independant of any content of thought. The question itself relegates being to the sidelines in favor of "pure" thought, or as Thomas asserts:

"If God has created out of nothing, the proper and ultimate nature of the creature is nothingness" - de aeternitate mundi

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Why not nothing?

Post #11

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: [Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]
"If God has created out of nothing, the proper and ultimate nature of the creature is nothingness"
We know that some thing is what the physical universe is made of. That is what we call it. We do not know if no thing exists.

We do not know that GOD created things from no thing.

I think of the physical universe we are experiencing as a reality, as being a creation of the mind of GOD in the mind of GOD. Thus the mind of GOD might be said to be the same thing as quantum particles.

The shaping of those particles into 'things' is like saying 'all things were created from one thing' rather than from no thing.

The problem with this kind of pure philosophical thinking (i.e. guessing) is that it doesn't offer any verifiable truths.

For one thing it doesn't answer the original question, "Why not nothing?". Instead it simply assumes (without evidence) that some sort of mind exists and has always existed. A mind would be a thing. And so at this point why aren't answering the question "Why not nothing?", but instead we are just introducing a totally arbitrary guess that some imagined mind could somehow always exist, and give rise to the forms we see around us.

The problem with this is that it is indeed just a guess. This is why pure philosophical thinking is no longer a valid means of obtaining truth. Guesses don't amount to truth, unless they just coincidentally happen to be extremely lucky guesses.
William wrote: I think of the physical universe we are experiencing as a reality, as being a creation of the mind of GOD in the mind of GOD. Thus the mind of GOD might be said to be the same thing as quantum particles.
And therein lies the problem with philosophical guesses. We can speak about quantum fields and the behavior of the quantum realm scientifically. And when we do that we stick with only what can be known about it.

Once we start calling it "God" and proclaiming that it represents some sort of mind, we have gone far beyond anything that can be known and instead all we have done is place why speculative guesses onto something that we truly do not know anything about.

This is the problem with pure philosophy. It does not lead us to any revealed truth, but instead it can actually take us astray into entertaining conclusions that may not have any truth to them at all.

While it may be fun to speculate like this, and can even be offered up as a hypothesis to be rigorously investigated, it most certainly doesn't reveal any actual wisdom or truth.

In fact, nothing we have seen in the quantum realm suggests that there is any intelligence going on. There is no indication that the quantum realm represents any sort of mind.

So ultimately if we would like to hypothesize that the quantum realm represents some sort of mine we would need to propose methods for testing this hypothesis. Until then it's nothing more than a pure guess that has no evidence behind it.

In short, until we can convert this from pure philosophical guessing and into meaningful science it is indeed a meaningless hypothesis.

This is why pure philosophy is dead. Until these things can become science they cannot be verified to be true. And guesses that cannot be verified to be true are meaningless.

You can propose guesses till the cows come home. But that doesn't change the fact that they are still nothing more than guesses.

Plus in this specific case the original question was totally evaded anyway. "Why not nothing?". Proposing that a mind has always existed does not answer the question "Why not nothing?". Instead all you've done is propose that something has always existed, (i.e. a quantum mind).

Also, maybe it's just a quantum field that always exists. Why would it need to be a mind?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #12

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

True wisdom is gained when we recognize the futility of systems of reasoning that have already been shown to be faulty and unproductive.
And yet people still insist on using science and reason which even it's most acclaimed and well known scientists admit it's inherent failings. Presenting a variation of the true Scottsman fallacy doesn't help either. Philosophy is still quite effective at producing its intended purposes so perhaps you've been shown something else.
Efforts to defend a failed system of reasoning do not represent wisdom.
I agree, and yet I also see that these scientific theories can still provide some explanatory power if even only to shed insights into how the superstitious mind operates.
It\'s far better to recognize what has already been shown to be true.
And yet, here again when dealing with truth claims, there really is no better option than philosophy. Given that you're using logic to disprove logic doesn't seem the best way to proceed with your "argument".

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #13

Post by Divine Insight »

shnarkle wrote: [Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

True wisdom is gained when we recognize the futility of systems of reasoning that have already been shown to be faulty and unproductive.
And yet people still insist on using science and reason which even it's most acclaimed and well known scientists admit it's inherent failings. Presenting a variation of the true Scottsman fallacy doesn't help either. Philosophy is still quite effective at producing its intended purposes so perhaps you've been shown something else.
Where has science failed? :-k

To claim that science has failed to answer a question you would need to show that an alternative method of answering the question has been found. Since there is no alternative method to answer those questions it's ridiculous to claim that science has failed to answer them. The truth is that no answers can be obtained.

And where is philosophy effective in its intended purpose? If the intended purpose of philosophy is to discover truth, then philosophy is proven to be ineffective.

shnarkle wrote:
Efforts to defend a failed system of reasoning do not represent wisdom.
I agree, and yet I also see that these scientific theories can still provide some explanatory power if even only to shed insights into how the superstitious mind operates.
Why talk about scientific "theories" when philosophy is the topic of discussion?
shnarkle wrote:
It\'s far better to recognize what has already been shown to be true.
And yet, here again when dealing with truth claims, there really is no better option than philosophy. Given that you're using logic to disprove logic doesn't seem the best way to proceed with your "argument".
Philosophy has been demonstrated to produce false conclusions.

Not only this but I'm not using logic to disprove logic.

Pure logic along is meaningless.

Logic itself is merely a reference to mankind's method of reasoning. Also, note that there are two major parts to logic.

First we must have premises to begin reasoning with. Therefore all logical reasoning begins with premises. Some premises themselves may be nothing more than pure guesswork. That being the case, then any logical reasoning the is based upon those premises is also nothing more than guesswork.

Logical reasoning is only as sound as the premises upon which it stands.

In science it has been recognized that the only sound premises that can be trusted are premises that match up with known reality. And this then becomes the basis of sound scientific logical reasoning.

If you fail to be certain of your premises, then you aren't doing science. Instead you are doing pure philosophy again.

Pure philosophy is dead.

It's not the philosophy in general is dead. To the contrary, science is the epitome of philosophy. And savvy philosopher should recognize that the natural science at the only way to go. Anything short of this is to do nothing more than cling to past methods that have long since been proven untrustworthy.

You say,...
shnarkle wrote: Philosophy is still quite effective at producing its intended purposes so perhaps you've been shown something else.
Show me a case where pure philosophy has been effective?

Using pure philosophy mankind has premised that the earth is the center of the universe. That was clearly wrong.

Using pure philosophy mankind has premises that the universe is eternal and in a fairly steady state of affairs. That was clearly wrong.

Using pure philosophy mankind assumed that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. That was clearly wrong.

Using pure philosophy mankind guessed that humans begin as a homunculous or miniature human that is passed from the male into the female for incubation. That was clearly wrong.

Using pure philosophy we can imagine all sort of incorrect and false things.

Only when we take into account real-world observations can we be sure of anything. And when we do that we're doing science.

Science is the only way to truth. Pure philosophy has already proven itself to be undependable and will definitely lead us astray from truth.

Science is where it's at. That's just the facts.

Pure philosophy is indeed dead. It truly is. Although academic institutions aren't about to admit this because they have too much financial resources tied up in their philosophy departments. So they'll keep teaching this nonsense just because its the best economical choice they have.

But the smart students will ignore philosophy and move over to science. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Why not nothing?

Post #14

Post by William »

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]
"If God has created out of nothing, the proper and ultimate nature of the creature is nothingness"
We know that some thing is what the physical universe is made of. That is what we call it. We do not know if no thing exists.

We do not know that GOD created things from no thing.

I think of the physical universe we are experiencing as a reality, as being a creation of the mind of GOD in the mind of GOD. Thus the mind of GOD might be said to be the same thing as quantum particles.

The shaping of those particles into 'things' is like saying 'all things were created from one thing' rather than from no thing.
The problem with this kind of pure philosophical thinking (i.e. guessing) is that it doesn't offer any verifiable truths.
It is not a 'problem'. That which is being addressed is an idea that "If God has created out of nothing, the proper and ultimate nature of the creature is nothingness" which itself is also guessing. My answer to the idea of GOD creating 'things' from 'non things' in the above is based upon logic in relation to the guessing.

"Verifiable truth" is not in the nature of subjects of "pure philosophical thinking (i.e. guessing)" but use of logical thinking in relation to such subject matter is.
For one thing it doesn't answer the original question, "Why not nothing?". Instead it simply assumes (without evidence) that some sort of mind exists and has always existed.
It is 'the question of GOD' but also 'the question of nothing' and no one has presented this 'evidence' you mention, about 'nothing actually existing' anyway.

Hench the platform of pure philosophical thinking.

The idea of The Mind of GOD being where 'All that Exists' takes place, aligns with the generic idea of 'what GOD is'.
A mind would be a thing.
Not in the sense you may be arguing here.

But, feel free to show us the 'thing' the mind is.
And so at this point why aren't answering the question "Why not nothing?", but instead we are just introducing a totally arbitrary guess that some imagined mind could somehow always exist, and give rise to the forms we see around us.
Obviously "Why Not Nothing" is able to be asked because "Something". Something is really why the question "Why not nothing" can be asked.
So, 'something' is the reason why 'nothing' does not exist.
'Something' is 'why not nothing'.

But, feel free to show us that nothing exists.
I think of the physical universe we are experiencing as a reality, as being a creation of the mind of GOD in the mind of GOD. Thus the mind of GOD might be said to be the same thing as quantum particles.
And therein lies the problem with philosophical guesses. We can speak about quantum fields and the behavior of the quantum realm scientifically. And when we do that we stick with only what can be known about it.
And in that, you are saying that thinking the QF to being in the mind of a GOD, is the subject of philosophy not science. I agree. I also note that we happen to be arguing this in the Philosophy forum, not the science forum.

I personally love educated guesses in relation to Philosophy and have no problem with them as long as they follow logical pathways. You appear to highly dislike such, to the point where you bring science into the philosophical argument.

Your better response would be to desist with philosophical argument altogether and focus on materialism.
Also, maybe it's just a quantum field that always exists. Why would it need to be a mind?
That is a philosophical question. Using philosophy, how would you answer that question DI?

I have an answer to it, but under the circumstance, interacting with you on philosophical levels only invites criticism that 'guesswork' is pointless. My answer is evidence-based, even that the subject is philosophical.

Put another way;

You and I both have 'dabbled' in the occult and through that have connected with something.

For me, the connection with the hidden mind is confirmation and opportunity.

For you, the connection involves doubt that 'perhaps it is all in the mind' inferring you may be 'making it up in your mind', and there is no other mind you can interact with, really, using such practices.

For me, that was never a question, given that it then begs the question "how would I know where my mind ends and the other mind begins?" to which the answer is "there is no real way to tell, so best not assume through doubt.

This allows for me to comfortably explore the mind under the better assumption that 'my mind' is an aspect of and within 'a greater mind.'

Loosely, that greater mind can be referred to as "a GOD". Collectively, it is what it is and does what it does.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Why not nothing?

Post #15

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: "Verifiable truth" is not in the nature of subjects of "pure philosophical thinking (i.e. guessing)" but use of logical thinking in relation to such subject matter is.
I think that's pretty much been my point all along. Obviously you can begin with whimsical premises and then apply logic to those to see where that leads.

As long as you are fully aware that this is what you are doing it's not a problem.

But this then reduces philosophy to nothing more than a mere game. Philosophers used to believe that philosophical thinking could actually lead us to absolute truths. I don't recall which philosopher was given credit for this, but one of them stated that pure though alone could lead us to truth. That ideal has since been demonstrated to be false.

There are many things we can imagine that simply have nothing to do with our actual reality.

But yeah, as long as you're viewing philosophy as a mere game where you can propose any premises you like and then follow the logical conclusions that those arbitrary premises lead to.

But the problem with that kind of thinking is that it doesn't really get you any further ahead in terms of any true wisdom or knowledge of reality.

You say,....
William wrote: It is not a 'problem'. That which is being addressed is an idea that "If God has created out of nothing, the proper and ultimate nature of the creature is nothingness" which itself is also guessing. My answer to the idea of GOD creating 'things' from 'non things' in the above is based upon logic in relation to the guessing.
That depends on what you consider to be a 'problem'.

Sure, following the logic from your premises requires that if we were created from nothing by a God then this leads to the conclusion that we are indeed nothing.

I won't argue with that logic based on that premise.

The 'problem' then becomes one of asking whether this conclusion is meaningful?

After all, the whole system is based on a guess that some unexplained imaginary God created us from nothing. That seems to be a rather silly premise to begin with, don't you think?

Why assume that this God created us from nothing? If we're already prepared to embrace the premise that some God exists, then wouldn't it make more sense to have the God create us from itself? This would be yet another "guess".

So which guess is closer to truth? :-k

Or perhaps neither is closer to truth?

Perhaps the truth is that there is no God that created us, and the answer to our existence is something entirely different.

So philosophy didn't get us anywhere, unless the object is to just have fun making ridiculous guesses about things?

But should colleges really be spending lot of educational money and resources jut to teach student to make random guesses and see where they lead?

Your guess leads us to being made of nothing and therefore being nothing.

That doesn't seem to be very useful or productive to me. Especially when the original premise itself was nothing more than a wild guess.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #16

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

True wisdom is gained when we recognize the futility of systems of reasoning that have already been shown to be faulty and unproductive.
Perhaps, your claims sound intriguing, but seem to lack any evidence or proofs to support them.
Where has science failed?
Would you say that when science comes to false conclusions, it is successful? If so, why? If not, then it failed.
To claim that science has failed to answer a question you would need to show that an alternative method of answering the question has been found.
No, that is a non sequitur. It does not follow that an alternative must be found to prove that what we're using doesn't work. Our own observations can prove that what we're using doesn't work, and therefore suggest that we search for one that does work. We need only show that what we're using doesn't work. Scientists can't agree on many of the theories that have been bandied around for the last few decades, e.g. climate change; evolution; even gravity has come under scrutiny lately.

Furthermore, quantum logic has shown that much of science today relies upon the very classic logic you have already claimed is of no use anymore. See the problem yet?
Since there is no alternative method to answer those questions it's ridiculous to claim that science has failed to answer them.
This is simply begging the question.
The truth is that no answers can be obtained.
That sounds like an answer though, doesn't it? You're self escluding answers must be included which of course means that your truth claims are also false.
And where is philosophy effective in its intended purpose? If the intended purpose of philosophy is to discover truth, then philosophy is proven to be ineffective.
So would you say that your claim is true? If so, then it is false by your own logic. If it is false, it's false.

Why talk about scientific "theories" when philosophy is the topic of discussion?
I would ask you the same thing. After all, you're the one who brought up science in the first place. I'm simply responding to what you posted.

Philosophy has been demonstrated to produce false conclusions.
So has science, e.g. the geocentric theory; "Junk DNA", etc.
Not only this but I'm not using logic to disprove logic.
Right, you're using logical fallacies, which suggest that your conclusions may be false as well.

First we must have premises to begin reasoning with. Therefore all logical reasoning begins with premises. Some premises themselves may be nothing more than pure guesswork.
Or pointless tautologies. You claim a premise to reason without a reason for the premise. Using logic badly doesn't mean logic isn't effective. It just means that some don't know how to use logic effectively.
That being the case, then any logical reasoning the is based upon those premises is also nothing more than guesswork.
Yep, and theoretical science is effectively no different. Myths are't questioned by those who accept them. They provide the framework to interpret what one sees within that framework. Scientific theories are no different. Today science is being promoted as the repository of absolute truths, which is essentially what religion does. It should come as no surprise that there are many who have searched the tenets of this popular new faith and found it lacking. Given that the Catholic church was one of, if not the most generous donor supporting this new offshoot of the faith, one needs to keep in mind that these new priests aren't likely to bite the hand that feeds them. When we see them providing "evidence" that this solar system is at the center of the universe, it doesn't seem all that surprising after all.
Logical reasoning is only as sound as the premises upon which it stands.
Yep, and so far as I can tell, philosophy is still operating fine for those who know how to use it correctly.
In science it has been recognized that the only sound premises that can be trusted are premises that match up with known reality.
And yet science has also admitted that what is known is not reality.
And this then becomes the basis of sound scientific logical reasoning.
And it is also the same basis as philosophy. Science doesn't prove logical reasoning is false by using logical reasoning. At this point, you haven't provided anything to prove logic is "wrong, faulty,unsound, etc."
If you fail to be certain of your premises, then you aren't doing science. Instead you are doing pure philosophy again.
And yet it is still referred to as science; e.g. "theoretical science". To be certain of your premises is to be omniscient.
science is the epitome of philosophy.
Not really. Science is based upon observation, reproducible results and falsification. Philosophy is not bound or constrained by any of those requirements.
And savvy philosopher should recognize...
Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. The Savvy Scottsman fallacy.


Show me a case where pure philosophy has been effective?
I'm not claiming "pure philosophy", whatever that's supposed to mean; is necessarily effective. You're the one who is claiming that philosophy is dead. The burden of proof is upon you to show this is the case.
Using pure philosophy mankind has premised that the earth is the center of the universe. That was clearly wrong.
I doubt mankind used pure philosophy to come to that premise. Scientists have just revealed that our solar system is in fact quite close to what they term "the axis of evil". They've discovered that the universe has a sort of bent spine, and our solar system is quite near, if not at the center of all of it. Why are they referring to it as "the axis of evil"? Because they don't like the fact that they weren't the first to come to this discovery. This was covered in a thread a few years ago, and those who were defending the scientists for this terminology were pointing out that these scientists were just blowing off some steam due to stress.
Using pure philosophy mankind has premises that the universe is eternal and in a fairly steady state of affairs. That was clearly wrong.
Says you. Which universes are you comparing ours to? Where are the these so-called "steady" universes? Are the stars, the sun and moon falling from the sky in some apocalyptic nightmare as described in Revelation? Are meteors being drawn into the earth's orbit at some unsteady rate? How do you know this is unsteady? Is the universe expanding at differing rates? Scientists know that there are patterns of order within the process of water coming to a boil.
Using pure philosophy mankind assumed that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. That was clearly wrong.
Where does philosophy insist that heavy objects fall faster than light objects? Where is the proof that this is always the case? Do feathers fall at the same rate, or faster than rocks?
Using pure philosophy mankind guessed that humans begin as a homunculous or miniature human that is passed from the male into the female for incubation. That was clearly wrong.
So a male has no role in reproduction? Is the material from a man that is used by a woman not human? Is it large rather than small? A fetus doesn't spend any time in it's mother's womb? Was philosophy clueless? Science doesn't seem to have a problem with eating people, or killing people either. Science basically doesn't have an opinion on the matter, and may never be able to muster one.
Using pure philosophy we can imagine all sort of incorrect and false things.
Using pure science we don't have to use our imagination at all to see people eating their children, or murdering them as soon as their born. Some see no limitations to kill anyone of their choosing. Pure science seems to be breeding psycopaths.
Only when we take into account real-world observations can we be sure of anything.
Except for the fact that it was "real world" observations that gave us the geocentric theory.
And when we do that we're doing science.
Right, and our observations are quite often incorrect. Our observations deceive us. Our observations are fallible. More importantly, our observations are quite frequently interpreted incorrectly which only adds yet another layer of confusion leaing to false conclusions.
Science is the only way to truth.
Science doesn't make truth claims. That's confined to the realm of philosophy, and religion. While I disagree with your assessment, I do agree that science is quickly becoming the new religion on the block. Your posts are a prime example of this phenomena, and how this religious fervor has begun to spread thoughout the world. The more things change the more they stay the same. Out with that good ol' timey religion, and in the with the new.
Pure philosophy has already proven itself to be undependable and will definitely lead us astray from truth.

Science is where it's at. That's just the facts.
Preach it brother.
Pure philosophy is indeed dead. It truly is. Although academic institutions aren't about to admit this because they have too much financial resources tied up in their philosophy departments.
Not really. The classics of western civilization are all dying quickly. It isn't because they don't lack merit, but because people believe that the stem sciences will offer them better employment opportunities. There's some truth to that, but the reality is that more and more people are discovering that a college or university education is no ticket to a better life. Instead, they see that it only offers them student loan debt that they can never repay, and that will always be on their financial record. So they're skipping college altogether and either looking for work, staring into some technological device in their parent's basement or moving out of the country.

But the smart students will ignore philosophy and move over to science.
The correct terminology isn't student, but "devotee". It's really more about worshipping science than using it.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #17

Post by Divine Insight »

shnarkle wrote: I'm not claiming "pure philosophy", whatever that's supposed to mean; is necessarily effective. You're the one who is claiming that philosophy is dead. The burden of proof is upon you to show this is the case.
By "pure" philosophy I simply mean philosophical thinking that is dependent upon nothing more than pure thought. In other words, it's philosophy that doesn't take into consideration real world facts.

No you may try to argue that a philosopher is free to take into consideration real world facts. The problem is that the moment they do this they are doing "science".

This is the only difference between philosophy and science. Science demands that we base are rational reasoning on what can be demonstrated via observations of the actual world we live in.

So the moment you take into consideration real world facts you are already doing science.

shnarkle wrote: The correct terminology isn't student, but "devotee". It's really more about worshipping science than using it.
Why talk about it in terms of worshiping? Apparently you are making an attempt to denigrate it to being nothing more than a faith-based religious ideal.

That's far from the case. Science has been demonstrated to reveal truth. "Pure Philosophy" (i.e. philosophy which is not science), has been demonstrated to produce erroneous results and outright false conclusions. Pure philosophy cannot lead you to truth. Only science can do that.

So you can fight against science all you want, but it's really the only means available to you if you are interested in discovering truth.

So if you are interested in discovering truth, science is your best friend. And pure philosophy is your worst enemy.

Your choice. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #18

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]
By "pure" philosophy I simply mean philosophical thinking that is dependent upon nothing more than pure thought. In other words, it's philosophy that doesn't take into consideration real world facts.
So pure philosophical thinking wouldn't take into consideration that the thoughts under consideration are real? How does one think without using real world thoughts? Who thinks these thoughts that are not dependant upon someone who actually exists in the real world? Who is this thinker who doesn't actually exist?
you may try to argue that a philosopher is free to take into consideration real world facts. The problem is that the moment they do this they are doing "science".
Interesting. It would seem from your claims that any thought that anyone may have concerning the real world automatically makes the one thinking them a scientist. I suspect you would agree that "The Thinker" probably ought to be renamed "The Scientist". Upon further thought (or should I say further scientific inquiry?), it does seem that there are an abundance of scientists today doing a lot of thinking and not much else.
This is the only difference between philosophy and science.
The only difference? I see one other difference already. For example, they're both spelled differently. I suspect I can come up with quite a few more if I were to think about it, er I mean engage in science.
Science demands that we base are rational reasoning on what can be demonstrated via observations of the actual world we live in.
And since science has shown that we can change the outcome of scientific experiments simply by observing the experiment, it stands to reason that the observable world isn't as real as we may think it is.

The double slit experiment is my favorite because it proves that simply by looking at light from a star that could be hundreds of thousands of light years away, we have effectively changed the course that light took to reach our eyes. Our observations actually change the way light moved through space hundreds of thousands of lightyears ago.

Why talk about it in terms of worshiping?
Because making truth claims transcends science and places it squarely in the realm of absolutes which is the realm of the gods.
Apparently you are making an attempt to denigrate it to being nothing more than a faith-based religious ideal.
My real world observations are in no way an attempt to denigrate those who hold idealistic opinions of science. The fact that these opinions are no different than those held by the religious, and more importantly quite often compared to religious beliefs, spotlights the validity of these real world observations. You see, I'm using science here which as you have already pointed out is irrefutable when based upon known real world facts. The religious are also prone to take things a bit too personally when they irrationally begin to believe that they are being denigrated for their beliefs. I am not in any way suggesting that anyone stop believing the tenets of their faith, even if those tenets are contradictory.

Science has been demonstrated to reveal truth.
Sure, which is why we can see that science has replaced those inferior religious claims to truth. In other words, Science is the newest reigning religious belief. One of the tell tale signs of religious fervor is chanting or repetitious prayers to the gods. Your next comment is a prime example of repeating yourself.
"Pure Philosophy" (i.e. philosophy which is not science), has been demonstrated to produce erroneous results and outright false conclusions. Pure philosophy cannot lead you to truth. Only science can do that.
which is repeating these earlier posts:
Philosophy has been demonstrated to produce false conclusions.
Science is the only way to truth.
The religious quite frequently rely upon repetition to increase their level of faith in what they believe. It seems to work in the real world. It also seems to lead to quite interesting contradictions. For example, given what you've said just in this last post, one has to wonder how you will reconcile all of that with what you said earlier, e.g.:
Something obviously exists, but apparently we can't know anything about it.
So given that science is the only way to arrive at the truth, or the only way to make truth claims, it seems quite odd that these truth claims can never be known from what exists in the real world.

So you can fight against science all you want,
Why would I do that? I'm not against making observations or thinking about the real world around me. More importantly, how does one fight against what they can't know?
but it's really the only means available to you if you are interested in discovering truth.
Given that what can be discovered about the truth can't be known, how does one know they've discovered the truth?
So if you are interested in discovering truth, science is your best friend.
Evidently, the best friend you will never know, which sounds an aweful lot like those who believe in their god who no one will ever know or see.
And pure philosophy is your worst enemy.
And yet, if your best friends can never be known in the real world, philosophy may not actually be much of an enemy, especially if it's pure philosophy which is essentially just thoughts, right?

Your choice; the evil you know or the friends you can never know.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #19

Post by Divine Insight »

shnarkle wrote: The double slit experiment is my favorite because it proves that simply by looking at light from a star that could be hundreds of thousands of light years away, we have effectively changed the course that light took to reach our eyes. Our observations actually change the way light moved through space hundreds of thousands of lightyears ago.
Clearly you are not a scientist. Science does not claim that your observations change anything that may have happened in the past. Nor does it claim that your observations of light determines the path that light has taken.

Apparently you've been reading a lot of philosophical guessing about what Quantum Mechanics supposedly has to say about the real world.

According to Richard Feynman light takes all possible paths. How do you expect to change that? :-k
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #20

Post by shnarkle »

Divine Insight wrote:
shnarkle wrote: The double slit experiment is my favorite because it proves that simply by looking at light from a star that could be hundreds of thousands of light years away, we have effectively changed the course that light took to reach our eyes. Our observations actually change the way light moved through space hundreds of thousands of lightyears ago.
Clearly you are not a scientist. Science does not claim that your observations change anything that may have happened in the past. Nor does it claim that your observations of light determines the path that light has taken.

Apparently you've been reading a lot of philosophical guessing about what Quantum Mechanics supposedly has to say about the real world.

According to Richard Feynman light takes all possible paths. How do you expect to change that? :-k
I can only suggest you read up on the double slit experiment because it proves conclusively that simply observing the experiment changes the outcome. It literally changes how light travels through the slit and appears on photo-reactive media.

It's well documented and the later experiments with multiple avenues for light to travel along with mirrors, and splitting the beams are also quite elaborate and conclusive as well. I'm actually a bit surprised you are unaware of these quite old experiments. We used to do this in grade school. Space-Time isn't linear either, so until you get up to date, perhaps it would be better if we table this discussion until you've had time to google it. There are obviously better places to get the full details, but the online information is accurate.

Post Reply