20
   

when is Schroedinger's cat dead, and when is it not?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2014 02:25 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Naive realism is the view that "the world and the things in it" exist independently of humans.


And anyone who looks on "naive realism" with as much disdain and contempt as you regularly do, Fresco, has to explain why he/she thinks HUMANS are such important ingredients in this "whole thing."

We are beings that have existed for a short time on a relatively insignificant speck of dust circling a relatively insignificant sun in a relatively insignificant galaxy.

How do you do this with a straight face?

You are like an ant suggesting it knows the cosmos because it knows the few blades of grass in the relatively tiny area it traverses...and that all that exists...depends on the observations of it and its fellow ants.

And if you are wondering, yes, I do look with disdain and contempt on people who would look with disdain and contempt on people who are naive realists.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2014 02:27 pm
@fresco,
Therefore, if i follow you, all realism is naive. You might as well drop the 'naive' qualification then, which is nothing short of an insult.

What's your theory of origins? Whence do humans come from?

Ps: epistemology is the best branch of metaphysics, the one that grounds knowledge in empiricism, tells us what we can and cannot know scientifically, and calls for parsimony beyond empirical facts. It's essentially a critique of classic metaphysics from the inside, asking 'what do the facts tell us?' and answering (in short): 'not as much as we often assume, so let's stay away from grandiose unsupported claims'.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2014 02:34 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Therefore, if i follow you, all realism is naive. You might as well drop the 'naive' qualification then, which is nothing short of an insult.

What's your theory of origins? Whence do humans come from?

Ps: epistemology is the best branch of metaphysics, the one that grounds knowledge in empiricism, tells us what we can and cannot know scientifically, and calls for parsimony beyond empirical facts. It's essentially a critique of classic metaphysics from the inside, asking 'what do the facts tell us?' and answering (in short): 'not as much as we often assume, so let's stay away from grandiose unsupported claims'.


The enlarged part of your comment is poorly written. Look up the word "whence."
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2014 02:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Take this up with the High Priest of the English Language Setanta. I borrowed the phrase from him.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2014 02:57 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Take this up with the High Priest of the English Language Setanta. I borrowed the phrase from him.


I'd be shocked if Setanta phrased it that way...more than shocked. I don't like the guy...but he normally handles the language with greater precision than that.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2014 03:12 pm
Whence hath this man this wisdom?

Clown!
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2014 05:45 pm
@Olivier5,
Naive realism is a technical term...
Quote:
Naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world.

...but I am quite happy to confess to using the term disdainfully to fools who have done no reading, and are dismissive about the positions of renowned thinkers from Kant onwards who have rejected it.

My own research in epistemology leads me to reject your view of it, but as stated above I do not intend to engage in repetitive banter here. Reference to my posting archive will yield all I wish to say about concepts such as "reality","facts", "observation" and "pragmatism".
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 07:44 am
@timur,
timur wrote:

Whence hath this man this wisdom?

Clown!


Perhaps...but not "Whence do humans come from?"

Although I would have preferred, "Whence cometh humans?" because that was what he was actually asking, Clown.




Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 07:49 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Naive realism is a technical term...
Quote:
Naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world.

...but I am quite happy to confess to using the term disdainfully to fools who have done no reading, and are dismissive about the positions of renowned thinkers from Kant onwards who have rejected it.

My own research in epistemology leads me to reject your view of it, but as stated above I do not intend to engage in repetitive banter here. Reference to my posting archive will yield all I wish to say about concepts such as "reality","facts", "observation" and "pragmatism".



So are you also disdainful about the FOOLS who suppose that because Kant and some others have rejected it...it is a lesser thought about REALITY...even those FOOLS who pretend their reason for doing so is not solely reliance on appeals to authority, but also personal research in epistemology?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 09:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
Ok, 'whence do humans come?' it is.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 10:24 am
@fresco,
Disdain is cheap. You can get tons of it for nothing, every one of us make some. I for one disdain people who pretend to be learned but are in fact just throwing everything they misread into some amorphous, unstructured mixture of pseudo-philosophical platitudes... and swirl the whole thing into some **** storm or another.
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 10:28 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
And Schoedinger's Cat is supposed to help explain the Observer Effect.


Sure, explained with silly children's cartoons.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 10:47 am
@north,
Quote:
exactly

and that is what realivity is all about , the " observer " , but not the object its self, which is more important really


True.

An observer from Jupiter will see a man seating on a beach of planet earth "resting" and a satellite orbiting around planet earth at 18,000 miles per hour, and that the man resting on the beach and the satellite orbiting around planet earth are BOTH TRAVELING AT 67,000 MILES PER HOUR AROUND THE SUN.

The observer rules, there is not such a silly time dilatation, relativity is crap to the square.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 10:57 am
Schroedinger's cat is assumed to exist for the purpose of the experiment.

Otherwise it shouldn't be mentioned at all as being inside the box.

There are aspects not mentioned in the assumed scenario of the cat and the poison gas, for example, how long the waiting period should be in order to check the status of the cat? An hour, a day, two days?

0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 11:35 am
@Olivier5,
Smile I wish you luck in finding such a person!
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 11:43 am
@fresco,
Hey, I found you...

Try and structure your salmagundi of naïve irrealism into something even remotely useful and fruitful. As of now, it is sterile.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 11:56 am
@Olivier5,
I believe salmagundi is particularly enhanced by the addition of shredded frog.

timur
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 12:26 pm
Olivier wrote:
Disdain is cheap. You can get tons of it for nothing, every one of us make some. I for one disdain people who pretend to be learned but are in fact just throwing everything they misread into some amorphous, unstructured mixture of pseudo-philosophical platitudes... and swirl the whole thing into some **** storm or another.

What an accurate description of Frank's babble!
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 12:56 pm
@timur,
Heuh... That was supposed to be about Al Fresco... Frank reduces everything to tautologies, type: whatever is, is. There is also the variant: whatever is not, is not, and scores of others. They all amount to saying the same nothingness.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2014 01:00 pm
@Olivier5,
Chilling!

It's especially true in the case of Frank.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:13:56