How can something come from nothing?

@spendius,

W is significant because he rejected his own earlier celebrated Tractatus (which supported logical positivism), for a view contextual semantics. Interestingly his Damascene conversion came about partially from his consideration of colour perception, which itself has now become a microcosm for (non-dualistic) cognitive science. W on colour is notoriously difficult and I admit that my own reading has been pragmatically delimited to extrapolation of W's position by cognitive scientists such as Rosch.

W is also generally significant (as you probably know) in adding weight to the post-modernist movement, in whose roots can be traced back to Kant's attempted separation of phenonema and noumena.. In particular, deconstruction (re Derrida ..another "difficult" writer) is therefore linked to ontology.

Well that's the straight answer, but if you are merely running a "get philosphers" agenda (or even a "get fresco" agenda) I am sorry to disappoint !

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Good. I knew (...for Frank's benefit...) you would make a meal of that whatever angle you decided to take, but you identified the salient point ....!

Quote:

it's the kind of thing amateurs would argue about

As for my own "dogma", other than denying the intellectual utility of "naive realism" beloved of amateurs (just like we as two proclaimed atheists deny the intellectual utility of "God"), I don't know what you are talking about. In everyday life we all operate as though "reality" were independent of us, but one of the functions of philosophy is to question such assumptions, especially when those operations are extended beyond "the norm"as in frontier science. At some point, the "observation of observation" becomes an issue which may indeed lead to some general conclusions (self-evident perhaps) about ontology and epistemology.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You are engaged in the same process of describing reality of which Fresco is so fond--and as is the case with his rants, the claim is unsubstantiated and does not serve to establish his case simply by being uttered. That there are descriptions of reality, and that they are as closely as we may approximate reality is not evidence that there is no reality independent of the descriptions. Both you and Fresco miserably fail to address the issue i brought up, the decay of isotopes.

Not quite. I said that there is a reality independent of us, only that time itself does not exist independently of us. Time is an epistemological and psychological concept that humans bring to the table. It's something that is peculiar to human beings (and most likely all organisms). Time, however, does have a referent to change, which is something occurring whether or not we exist.

Fresco would say that change as well is something that is always 'for us'. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Human beings are receptive to their environment, but that does not mean that humans do not in some way contribute to their environment. It's a symbiotic process.

Hope that clears up any problems.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Questioning an assumption does not constitute evidence that the assumption is either false, or even merely flawed.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Oh, i don't have any problems with that--i've already pointed out that the fact that time is a concept is not evidence that it does not exist independently of our conceiving of it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5201120)
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Why disagree if you're unwilling to provide a reason for why you disagree?

I can disagree or not disagree as I choose. I am not captive to some set of rules that require I do such-and-such if I do.

I agree that you can agree or disagree as you choose. But to provide no reason whatsoever to your agreement or disagreement seems a little strange. If you don't want to expound on your ideas, then by all means don't.

Ding, I normally expound on every idea...when I think the individual with whom I am speaking is being real...and not just trying to get me to jump through hoops. I've been around for a long time in this forum and its predecessor...and most people know I am tenacious as a bull dog.

Get real...and I will discuss anything with you.

But come up with something like "how do you know you do not know that"...and I am going to treat you the way you are asking to be treated.

Quote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Unlike Fresco, I am interested in what your position is. I'm a bit curious.

Really?

You are asking me to explain how I know that I do not know something...and the reason is curiosity!

C'mon. Be real...and I will have a conversation with you. Be absurd...and you will have to find another partner.

Well, I am being real. Since I don't know much about your take on epistemology and your reasons for thinking that time is independent of us, I am indeed curious and interested in what you'd have to say. I already know what Fresco and JLN think, so I would like to know what you think on the subject. That's all.

So...you have read what I have written to you...and have determined that I think time is independent of us.

Curious. A lot more curious than the "curious" you have been talking about.

How about you re-read what I have already written to you...try to comprehend what I have actually written a bit better than you have...and come back with a real question.

Then perhaps we can talk.

I presented a question: how do you know your claims are true? Do you have any evidence to support your claims that Fresco and I only 'think' that time is a epistemological and psychological construct 'for us'? If you do not wish to do that, then by all means don't.

0 Replies

@fresco,

My very first contribution to A2K, aside from my profile, was a "get philosophers" thread.

Getting fresco into the darts team and having the crack with the mill girls is merely a microcosmic aspect of the agenda.

I'll put a little flesh on the bones of my last post.

What is your view of the imagery being employed to sell expensive fragrances during the time which is ironically known as the "run up to Christmas"? It has been chosen by very well paid folks whose business is the expert (scientific) exploration of our minds. What does the imagery employed tell us about what they have discovered about us. Or what does it tell us about them.

It must be something to do with getting a hard on surely?

Which rather neatly deals with Henry the Eighth and the reason why amateurs are interested in his beddings.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Oh, i don't have any problems with that--i've already pointed out that the fact that time is a concept is not evidence that it does not exist independently of our conceiving of it.

Well, then what is time? It is a concept, but what is it ontologically?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

You wrote

Quote:

Questioning an assumption does not constitute evidence that the assumption is either false, or even merely flawed

.Hmm.. I'm sorry to say that at this level Niels Bohr seems to kick in with his...

Quote:

No you are not thinking. You are just being logical

...the point being that many "findings" about the nature of physical reality are counter-intuitive, or contradictory to normal assumptions, To take only one example, a particle existing simultaneously in more than one location, has been empirically "observed" (Principle of non-locality)

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

I've already pointed out that time is a dimension of reality.

1 Reply

@fresco,

This gets tedious, but i guess it needs to be repeated. That does not constitute evidence that reality does not exist independently of us.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I've already pointed out that time is a dimension of reality.

Do you have proof for this or link to a proof for this?

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Good post.

Thanks?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

....no, but that finding does question assumptions about "existence" per se.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

When you are done counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin, come back and maybe we can have a useful conversation.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I've never quibbled with the contention that we are dealing with descriptions of reality; and, of course, not all such contentions are created equal.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Ding an Sich wrote:

Unlike Fresco, I am interested in what your position is. I'm a bit curious.

He has already told you his position, and it is that he doesn't know, a classical Pyrrhonian skeptic at heart, Frank is.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

When you are done counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin, come back and maybe we can have a useful conversation.

Or you could present some proof in favor of your position.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Yes. Good synopsis even if I think your noumenal position is untenable.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

fresco wrote:

Good post.

Thanks?

But that's a value judgment.

0 Replies

How can something come from nothing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know