|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,473 Year: 3,730/9,624 Month: 601/974 Week: 214/276 Day: 54/34 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4978 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Philosophy and science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4978 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4978 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Bikerman writes:
It is because philosophy is religion.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. That is to say, philosophy is mostly about preserving ancient traditions, and it has no real subject matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4978 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
We will simply have to disagree about that...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Chopra? well-regarded? Hell no. quote: Deepak Chopra - Wikipedia I'm not saying he's not full of shit, but he's full of some very popular and well-regarded shit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4978 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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."
He is a joke and always has been and no serious philosopher would poke him with a long stick. Nonetheless, he's widely-read and well-regarded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4978 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
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 dogsbody PPS - 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The reason I mentioned philosophers specifically is because you said he was one, not because I think only their opinion matters. 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.
PPS - you said you could provide a list of philosophers misusing quantum physics. Fritjof CapraStuart Wilde Subhash Kak Fred Alan Wolf Jack Sarfatti John Hagelin Roger D. Nelson Henry Stapp Not an exhaustive list, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4978 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
You heavily implied he was in the following para
quote: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 listFritjof 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 physicist so what you have shown is that physicists are abusing QM, not philosophers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4978 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Bikerman writes: (or at least I'll pretend that when I say table it carries no extra meanings). I think that is for the best. I've already shown that it doesn't matter what we call it.
So does the table have physical existence which we can agree on? 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.
One way to see the table is as disturbances in an underlying quantum field. The field curls and kinks and we see this disturbances as particles at the atomic scale and as solid matter at the macro scale. 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. From the quantum field perspective there is no mass, no matter, no table. Wrong. There is no mass, no matter, but there certainly is still a table.
The various fermions we perceive as particles are peturbations in the quantum field rather than 'solid things' and the way they interact is by exchange of bosons which are themselves fields with excitations or peturbations which correspond to the 'particle' nature of the photon (or hypothetical graviton). Sooo....at a very basic level there is no 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. The table is percieved as such because the quantum field excitations which we think of as 'ourself' interacts with the quantum field excitations which we think of as 'the table' in a predictable manner to produce certain outcomes which we label a table. From the quantum viewpoint there is neither YOU nor TABLE, just ripples in fields.... 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.
So yes we can agree, but that agreement is contingent on our own structure and makeup. 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.
But it goes further - hence the photon question. If we are moving significantly quickly or observing from vastly different gravity potentials then no, we cannot agree on the table. We cannot even agree on the basic dimensions of the table. We also cannot even agree on how it relates causally to other. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4978 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024