40
   

How can we be sure?

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 16 Aug, 2011 07:54 pm
@Cyracuz,
My daughter recently asked me what color her shirt was. I guessed "purple" thinking that she was testing me. She said, "No, it's blue."
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Tue 16 Aug, 2011 08:04 pm
@fresco,
Yes, the co-extension of subject and object, especially, is something that is self-evident after sufficient effort, but totally counter-intuitive to the naive realist. Culture can be harmful.
north
 
  1  
Tue 16 Aug, 2011 09:47 pm

to be sure perhaps a more simple approach would be better

are we sure that the necessity of breathing and water to our survival are sure ?

can this be questioned ? I would hope not

then we can reason out that both WHAT WE BREATH AND DRINK was BEFORE our ability to understand both , therefore existed before we even contemplated what both were , their nature ( an investigation into their nature)

sound is the same

does the tree make a sound when it falls if no one is there to here it ? our course

nature isn't about us Humans , and /or ability to perceive its nature behaviour , it does what it does

our investigation of nature is about making sense about WHAT it does and WHY , hence science
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 16 Aug, 2011 09:48 pm
@JLNobody,
I would love to see you reasoning upon this function which is itself objective...that is, the very co-extension that you speak off, in order to exist, must be grounded in objective states of affairs concerning both the object and the subject at a X given moment, no algorithm can be formed otherwise...in sum, while one may gladly agree that the source is transcendent to the subject, the experience is nonetheless truthful and reflects a very specific objective phenomena, from which, everyone in the process is a living witness...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 16 Aug, 2011 10:45 pm


north
 
  1  
Tue 16 Aug, 2011 11:52 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,

what The Great Courses was this ? ( I have some myself )

by the way I disagree with some of what he says

mathematics is not the ultimate truth since the forms are based on the without ( the universe ) , of which is the basis of thought

which came first ? the physical or thought ?

physical
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 12:04 am
@north,
There´s no physical...physical is itself fruit of a relation in between laws (forces)...sort to speak theres only NATURE...or in the opposite perspective if you want, in a trans-temporal overview of the set of all sets, laws are the physical possible where everything did happen already...and yes I suspect the professor is yet to develop such understanding on this matter, maybe I am wrong...

(TTC - Great Ideas of Philosophy) get it, and all the TTC video courses/lectures there is to get, I did already !
north
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 12:15 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

There´s no physical...physical is itself fruit of a relation in between laws (forces)...sort to speak...or in the opposite perspective if you want, in a trans-temporal overview of the set of all sets, laws are the physical possible where everything did happen already...


disagree

so there is physical then ?

think about it , your argument is about the past

unless you define the past as not including the now , then the now is physical
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 12:22 am
@north,
I believe you don´t quite understand what the "physical" is all about...have you ever tried virtual reality full gear ? Suit and goggles ?
...yep, all that stuff are strings of zeros and ones...numbers !
...and yet when your avatar reaches a wall he stops and cannot cross it...

...as for your argument the past still was "physical"...your absence of experience of the past does n´t change what it was...the change of dynamics in between forms did n´t change the nature of such dynamics...
north
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 12:31 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
I believe you don´t quite understand what the "physical" is all about...have you ever tried virtual reality full gear ? Suit and goggles ?
...yep, all that stuff are strings of zeros and ones...numbers !
...and yet when your avatar reaches a wall he stops and cannot cross it...


electronics , the limits of guy

Quote:
...as for your argument the past still was "physical"...your absence of experience of the past does n´t change what it was...the change of dynamics in between forms did n´t change the nature of such dynamics...


of course and doesn't now

a galaxy is still a galaxy , stars , planets , moons etc.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 01:13 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I believe you don´t quite understand what the "physical" is all about...have you ever tried virtual reality full gear ? Suit and goggles ?
...yep, all that stuff are strings of zeros and ones...numbers !
...and yet when your avatar reaches a wall he stops and cannot cross it...


Wow did you just try using "collision detection" to define "physical"? You do know that collision detection is something that is programed and not actually a wall. Walls don't actually exist in virtual worlds, they are programed to behave how we understand walls to function. Which would be, when you walk into a wall it prevents your body from moving through it. Without collision detection the avatar would walk right through the object.

Physical really doesn't exist. What we are referring to when you say something is physical is the actual electro-magnetic force of repulsion. We don't actually "feel" anything physical, the atoms that make up our bodies is repelled by the atoms with the object that we are bumping up against. When you sit in a chair, the atoms of your body are being repelled from the atoms in the chair so neither actually touch or come into contact.

A better way to explain it is when you take two magnets and try to put similar poles of the magnets next to each other. You will feel a slight resistance, this is what is happening at the subatomic level with the atoms of objects. The only way you can "pass" through objects is when their atoms are more "loosely" arranged such as "air" or "water". But even then, there is still resistance, it is just far less than "solid" objects.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 06:46 am
@Krumple,
Damn Krumple is the same thing...if you want I use "wall" under comas...in both cases "wall" is a function achieved by different methods...its a wall like effect is that better ?...and its law like no matter what you say the comparison still stands...further, I know how electromagnetism works are you joking ??? What you said does not make the slightest difference...bottom line is information in between the atoms that prevents them from colliding obeying to fundamental principles of possibility...both electromagnetism or collision detection are law like compelling rules in two different worlds...yet its amazing how people can still miss the point !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 10:38 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
By "collision" it was meant scrambling of information concerning those particles...as for the other three forces of nature, gravity, and the strong an weak forces on the nucleus the very same idea apply´s...their nature is defined by law like non caused features/rules in between information and their respective behaviour...a set of yes´s and no´s allow to simulate them all in the smallest detail...

PS - the sucker thumbing down my above post should thumb up is on ass which is what he deserves...damn stupid people !
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 01:43 pm
@kuvasz,
Quote:
One could use a spectroscope to record that the reflected light has a frequency of 700 nanometers. In such a case, "light" would be akin to sound in the tree/falling/in the forest. However, the "color" red arises from the physical phenomena of visible light interacting with the cones of the human eye with the mind processing the interaction. While the wavelength of the light itself may exist, the color does not exist without the observation of the eye.


Aside from the details of the perceiving mechanisms between hearing and vision, I don't see where your distinction lies.

When one refers to "light" one is generally referring to that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is perceivable through vision to the human eye. That "light" occurs in a range between 380 and 740 nm, with violet occurring between 380 and 450 nm ± and red occurring around 620 and 740 nm ±. The human eye can perceive differences within that range. In physics "light" sometimes refers to electromagnetic energy of any wavelength, for the purposes of this discussion, however, let's stick with that part of the EM spectrum that is perceivable by the human eye.

Humans perceive light throughout its entire spectrum through the mechanisms of their eyes.

Humans perceive sound through the mechanisms of their ears.

In exactly the same way you assert that "color does not exist without the observation of the eye," sound does not exist without the observation (i.e. perception) of the ear.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 01:58 pm
@Raishu-tensho,
Quote:
If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

It depends on what you mean by "no one" and "sound."

Quote:
My question is, is anything certain?

Sure, a lot of things are certain. 2 + 2 = 4 is certain.

Quote:
Can we be sure of an outcome merely because it has been done?

We can be sure of a lot of outcomes, like in the example I gave above. We are sure of the outcome of 2 + 2.

Quote:
Is there any real truth to it, or can that not be decided?

Hmm, good question. Is 2 + 2 = 4 "really" true, or have we arbitrarily agreed that it is true?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 02:30 pm
@InfraBlue,
If think it was Principia Mathematica who spent a good deals of its volumes precisely trying to prove 1+1=2...
(a thousand pages)
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 07:05 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
In exactly the same way you assert that "color does not exist without the observation of the eye," sound does not exist without the observation (i.e. perception) of the ear.


Let me repeat this. Sound is best defined as a sonic vibration, whose existence is not dependent on observation. There is no need for an observer for sound to exist. Color, not light, is a physiological phenemona, that's existence is dependent on an observer.

You are getting hung up on the word "perception,"and define reality as that which can be percieved by the sense organs. But tell me if you can have cancer yet be mentally unaware of it? Does that mean your body is cancer-free?

I repeat, take a look at Fresco's post above. He understands exactly to which I refer.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 08:45 pm
@kuvasz,
1 - ...I think he knows what you are talking about regarding the sonic wave vibration of air which produces "sound"...in turn you don´t seem to understand enough about brain processing information to get what he meant...sad !

2 - ...equally, further above, Krumple also does n´t seem to understand that it is possible to program any sequence of information to emulate to the full the four forces of nature and their specific initial conditions...actually, all of them act very much like "collision detectors" regarding the release distribution or conservation of strings of information...the least important reboot which he unfortunately opt to made is that artificial rule X is in place instead of natural rule Y...when bottom line what he missed was that things like mass, density, acceleration, speed, and so on, can all be reduced to assembled systems of information strings...such lower function systems while in interaction under X given rules produce certain, higher scale function like effects, as for instance in the case, the experience of solidity in that which we call matter...virtual worlds naturally may disregard the level of complexity observed in "real" world in favour of more simple set of rules out of sheer convenience but does that change anything important ?...hell no !
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Wed 17 Aug, 2011 09:51 pm
@InfraBlue,
Yes, infrablue, it depends on what we mean by "sound". I define it as an experiential phenomenon, and as such it doesn't occur--by my definiton--without ears.

Oh, and tautologies are trivial certainties. Isn't 1+1 just another way of saying 2?
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Thu 18 Aug, 2011 12:54 am
See? I knew this was going to happen. You guys are actually arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! Rolling Eyes
 

Related Topics

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 0.03 seconds on 04/22/2024 at 10:33:07