Philosophy and science

Chopra? well-regarded? Hell no. Are you making this up as you go along?
He is a medical doctor, not a philosopher and he is widely despised amongst both scientists and real philosophers.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

OK now I have some sympathy for this yes. In fact I struggle to think of a philosopher of real note and import since Wittgenstein.
That may be simply because, like most of the rest of the arts and social sciences, post-modernism infected the subject and people started worrying way too much about relativism and whether anything was more true than anything else. Or it may be that we are just in a lean period for philosophy, or it may be saying that philosophy is indeed dying. Personally I doubt the latter and think it is a combination of the first two...

It is because philosophy is religion.That is to say, philosophy is mostly about preserving ancient traditions, and it has no real subject matter.

We will simply have to disagree about that...

quote:

---

Chopra has written more than 56 books.[quantify] His books have been translated into 35 languages and sold more than 20 million copies worldwide.[30] His book, Peace Is the Way won the Quill Awards and The Book of Secrets: Unlocking the Hidden Dimensions of your Life received the Nautilus Award. Chopra is represented in the United States by the literary agency, Trident Media Group.[63] His first book, Creating Health, is credited with helping to create initial, international recognition for Chopra.[7]

---

Deepak Chopra - WikipediaI'm not saying he's not full of shit, but he's full of some very popular and well-regarded shit.

Are we reading the same wiki?
I see a lot of old nonsense prizes that any celebrity 'academic' has got. Hell, Jeremy Clarkson has two PhDs in Engineering. Nothing of substance and certainly no endorsement from anyone I recognise as even vaguely philosophic, let alone a professional philosopher.
Then we have the criticicism section and suddenly there he shines forth.As for what philosophers think of him - he says it himself in an interview

quote:

---

Yeah. I think to some extent I am. But, again, you know I'm not an academic. So mainstream philosophers always have a problem with what I write, as do mainstream scientists. Everybody has a problem with what I write.

---

Whenever anyone says mainstream in an interview, 99 gets you 100 that some wack-job is about to pontificate. He is a joke and always has been and no serious philosopher would poke him with a long stick.

Right, see, here's the arrogance of the philosopher again - nobody's regard matters unless it's the regard of the philosopher. It's the philosopher who dictates, from on high, who is important and who is not. What is true and what is not.The fallacy of the philosophers is that they attempt to place themselves as the gatekeepers of the road to knowledge, but they're more like highwaymen, demanding their "tribute." Nonetheless, he's widely-read and well-regarded.

Woah! The reason I mentioned philosophers specifically is because you said he was one, not because I think only their opinion matters. I thought this was clear from the context?Chopra is well regarded by no scientist or philosopher I know or have heard of. He is popular on the media apparently and may be taken seriously by some, but not professional thinkers, be they philosophers or physicists. (Anyone else's opinion would be secondary because most of his stuff masquerades as philosophy and misuses science so who better to judge?PS - I'm not a philosopher, I'm a lecturer/teacher (IT/Comp), a systems manager and a some-time recording engineer/studio dogsbodyPPS - you said you could provide a list of philosophers misusing quantum physics. Can you ?Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

I never stated that Deepak Chopra was a philosopher; he's just an example of someone using quantum mechanics as a basis for woo and the primacy of thought. Fritjof Capra
Stuart Wilde
Subhash Kak
Fred Alan Wolf
Jack Sarfatti
John Hagelin
Roger D. Nelson
Henry StappNot an exhaustive list, of course.

You heavily implied he was in the following para

quote:

---

I don't know. I do know that particle physics specifically is used, or misused, by philosophers to support the notion of a universe determined by perception. Didn't you see "What the *&^% Do We Know?" Or maybe you missed Deepak Chopra, one of the nation's foremost authorities on "wellness":

---

Since the subject of the first clause is philosophers then it would be natural to think that Chopra is in that subject group...
You also later said he has support from lots of philosophers....really? Who?To the list
Fritjof Capra is a physicist
Stuart Wilde is an author mainly, and he is not regarded as a professional philosopher.
Subhash Kak is a computer scientist
Fred Alan Wolf is a theoretical physicist
Jack Sarfatti is also a physicist
John Hagelin is also a physicist
Roger D. Nelson is a psychologist
and
Henry Stapp is a particle physicistso what you have shown is that physicists are abusing QM, not philosophers.

I'm sorry but "Professional Philosopher" really does sound like an oxymoron. Who the hell would hire a philosopher?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Mostly universities. True that there is not much call for a professional philosopher outside academia.The way I would describe a person's 'primary' field is it will be the one where they have their first degree and normally their masters or doctorate, and in which they have published in the literature.
I'm pretty sure that using that or similar criteria, the people listed are as I have classified them.

And for a good reason.Want fries with that?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I think that is for the best. I've already shown that it doesn't matter what we call it. Yes, of course it does. That's why everyone agrees that tables exist physically... because their existence can be verified independant of the observer... therefore their existence is objective. I agree, but this doesn't change the fact that the table's existence can be verified independant of the observer... therefore the existence of tables is objective.
Again, you're getting into what the table's existence depends on. Such questions are interesting, but irrelevant in determining if the table exists at all. Wrong. There is no mass, no matter, but there certainly is still a table. Wrong. At a very basic level the table is not 100% solid. But that assumption was never made in order to verify the table's existence. Therefore this information is irrelevant in determining the table's existence.
Again, it doesn't matter if the table is 100% solid, or of it's merely fields interacting with no matter at all. It's still a table and it's existence can still be verified independant of the observer. What that existence depends on is irrelevant in determining if the table exists at all. Wrong again.
There is no YOU in 100% solid form. However, there is a YOU that is just ripples in fields.
There is no TABLE in 100% solid form. However, there is a TABLE that is just ripples in fields.
You are agruing against an assumption that was never made. I never assumed the table was 100% solid. I never assumed the table was "ripples in fields". I assumed that I can see the table, and I can bump my hip into it.
This could be because matter is actually hitting matter... but it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.
This could be because ripples in fields are interacting and perceived as being able to see the table and being able to bump my hip into it... but it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.
This could be because the power of God has created an illusion that I perceive as being able to see the table and being able to bump my hip into it... but it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.Regardless of what the table's existence depends on... the fact that I can see it and bump my hip into it and so can others means it's existence can be verified independantly from the observer which means... the table objectively exists. No. What we think the table's existence depends on is contingent on our own structure and makeup. However, the objective existence of the table need not make any of those assumptions. Again, before we move onto more complicated questions, let's first agree that a table can, indeed, objectively exist without requiring any philosophy whatsoever. If you can point out where philosophy is required, please do so.

OK, let's simply change the perspective and see what happens to the table.
Let's say we progressively reduce our size. Obviously at first the table is still the same table, just bigger relatively. When we get down to sufficiently small then the table is different. What was a smooth top is now a jungle of strands of fibres. More importantly the dimensions have now changed because our measurement of the dimensions of the table will be much larger to account for all the 'kinks'. As we decrease our size, the measured (objective) size of the table will increase, tending to infinity.Once we get to atomic size then there is no solid table at all, just blurry electrons popping here and there and an incredibly distant nucleus. Does the table have objective existence ? I don't actually know how to answer that question at an atomic scale. In the sense of a solid object then no. In the sense of a physical 'something' that has an agreeable set of dimensions, then no. In the sense of something objectively verifiable by others? Only if some arbitrary assumptions are made beforehand about what set of atoms will be known as 'table' and which set will act as a divider between the newly defined 'table' and the environment.Or take another perspective at the same scale as us but a different scale of density. It is basically the same effect - at some scale the difference in density between the table and the surroundings is vanishingly small, to the point where the table becomes indistinct and eventually indiscernable. OK you could say that is just a function of measurement sensitivity, but so what? As you said, we aren't concerned with measurement, just whether it has a physical existence which is objectively verifiable.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.