Who is your favorite Physicist?

Dear readers here, I present to you one Fresco, he is a one man learned society of name droppers and technical terms droppers.

Please read his post, below reproduced, and notice what names he has dropped, and also the, may I emphasize by exaggeration, massive number of technical terms he has dropped.

I will put the names he has dropped in italic and the technical terms he has dropped by putting them in bold,* see below, in Annex.

Now, dear Fresco and also all readers and posters here, I ask ourselves, what is the big deal with Fresco in his presenting himself here as a one man learned society, of name droppers and technical terms droppers, is the man really learned at all, or full of hot unprofitable air in his head?

I challenge you, dear Fresco, to pick one thought in your post reproduced below in Annex, and tell mankind without name dropping and technical terms dropping, what is that one thought, based on experiences from your so far lived up lifetime, that you want very much mankind to learn from you: because it is beneficial to mankind according to you, in some specific aspect of mankind’s most pressing concern today.

I tell you, dear readers and mankind, Fresco will not accept my challenge to him here, to produce from his experiences, one thought that he is self-convinced to be most beneficial to mankind, according to his idea of what is beneficial, in regard to the most pressing concern of mankind at this present point in time, of man’s history in animate existence.

From my first contact with him, Fresco strikes me as a man with a lot of rote memory from others, but nothing from his very own self-thought out ideas.

Annex

Quote:

Post # 6,478,623 • fresco • Sat 5 Aug, 2017 08:41 am
*[Correction: I will just put the four instances of name dropping from Fresco in underscore, and the rest of the post as it appears originally, for the instances of technical terms dropping, because there are so many instances of technical terms dropping in the post.]
___________________________

The thread is about 'favorite physicists'. My answer (before the infantile SR twaddle started) was Niels Bohr partly because he understood the inextricable relationship between 'observer' and 'observed' (which is encapsulated in the Copenhagen Convention), and partly because he understood the now accepted view that 'language' socially constructs what we call 'reality' rather than represents it. Both of these aspects of Bohr are general to post modernist neopragmatism which deconstructs most dichotomous thinking, like subject-object (see Heidegger for example) or realism-antirealism (see Nietzsche for example).

So there is a plethora of interlinked ideas forming the backcloth to my position, none of which is antithetical to the remarkably successful application of mathematical models to epistemological progress. However, what is always up for grabs is the ontological status of mathematically constructed entities since that status is always enmeshed in a paradigmatic context which is subject to change.

Now if you think this view is 'overcomplicated', I suggest you are looking at from the pov of 'naive realism' and 'truth seeking' rather than thinking about what actually goes on in what we call 'science'. I have no requirement for 'absolute truths' or 'observer independent facts'. As long as the human goals of 'prediction and control' are being met, that is all we can expect from'science'.

0 Replies

@layman,

Well maybe if you repeat it long enough it will begin to come true? And if you convince yourself that you are sane, then it will certainly become true in your head that you're not some demented Einstein wannabe. And if you repeat long enough your momboed-jumbled clueless version of what some scientist said, maybe you can make your version supersede what the scientist said, at least in your head.

One thing though: no matter how long you parrot tough speak, you won't grow into a real man, the type who can recognise his faults and have the courage to give counter-intuitive ideas a fair hearing... Like the idea that Chicago and LA are not stationary, you know?

Get lost.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Dear Olivier5, you tell Layman, "Get lost."

Well, what about you also get lost!

Here is something for us all, for comic relief, be guided accordingly:

The Golden Rule in the negative draft is as follows:
"Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you."

And here is the positive draft:
"Do to others what you want others to do to you."

Which formulation is more universally beneficial to mankind: the negative or the positive draft?

I tell you Oh ye readers and posters here, from my part it is the negative draft; but read this now with a cup of salt, the positive draft also has the benefit, on occasions, like in the following instance:

I like to kiss a girl, so I kiss her, and tell her:
"Do to others what you want others to do to you," now dear sweet girl, "Kiss me back."

Have a good day, it is now in my place, eight hours in advance of Greenwich:
Sunday, 04:24 AM, August 6, 2017.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

ikaw ay isang tanga !

0 Replies

About able2know
able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

able2know is committed to providing these services free of charge. We believe the costs of developing and providing these services should be defrayed primarily with ethical advertising -- that is, an avoidance of pop-ups, spam, or other unreasonably obtrusive forms of advertising.

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.
https://able2know.org/about/
_____________________

Dear everyone here, I am so glad that I have come across a2k, because it is so possible here to get to talk from one's heart and mind, with no worry about being banned, unlike in other forums which are into pursuing some agenda, instead of pure quest for humans to exchange ideas.

So, dear guys here who are into all manners of prattle on your favorite physicist, tell you what, let's just talk NOT about who is your favorite physicist, but on what is your most profitable idea of physics, from your own thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

I see that it is because I like very much to meet with people who think from their own mind, instead of name dropping and technical terms dropping, and since the generality of posters are into that kind of a habit, I more often than not, sorry about that, end up as the last poster to have contributed a message to a thread erstwhile so busy with name droppers and technical terms droppers.

Read this About ak2 text on the goal pursued by the founders, owners, and operators of a2k, and let you please contribute a profitable message, okay?

Quote:

About able2know
able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

able2know is committed to providing these services free of charge. We believe the costs of developing and providing these services should be defrayed primarily with ethical advertising -- that is, an avoidance of pop-ups, spam, or other unreasonably obtrusive forms of advertising.

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.
https://able2know.org/about/

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Susie, you're new here, aint ya? Fresky, and his ilk, is notorious in this forum for being a name-dropping poseur who tries to throw in technical terms which he has come across, but doesn't understand himself, in order to create (he thinks) the illusion that he knows what he's talking about.

He's ALWAYS been that way, and, without doubt, always will be. Nothing you say will ever change that.

1 Reply

@layman,

Thanks, Layman, for your information.

Now, what do you think about Maxcondana, hope I got his name correctly.

The first time I met him, he strikes me as with a message for mankind, namely, to not engage in magic and magical thinking, which I see it clearly, not to think about the existence of God, and not to think philosophy, it must be all science.

The way I see science, it is today the fashion of folks who claim to be into science, and also sad, a lot of scientists, in particular who are against God existing, they are pursuing the path of hostility against philosophy.

But they seem to be oblivious to the fact that science without any anchoring on a philosophy is pure nonsense.

Okay, dear enthusiasts of science here, tell me, that you don't need to ground your science on a philosophy, giving examples of what to you are truths and facts in science, and that they are not grounded on a philosophy.

Dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath to witness the enthusiasts of science here, to tell us how science is not at all grounded on any philosophy, giving examples of truths and facts from science, that are not at all grounded on a philosophy.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Susmariosep wrote:

Now, what do you think about Maxcondana, hope I got his name correctly.

But they seem to be oblivious to the fact that science without any anchoring on a philosophy is pure nonsense.

Well, since you're asking my opinion about Max, I'll give it (as I already have, actually).

Max is, I presume, well-intentioned, but he is very naive philosophically. Many trained in the scientific disciplines are.

I realize that I'm using "technical terms" here, but I'll elaborate if requested: They confuse the "naturalistic methodology" used by science with the metaphysical notion of a "naturalistic ontology."

In like manner, Max confuses the mathematical tools of physics with physics itself, thinking the two are identical.

And, also likewise, he confuses the internal mathematical consistency of a subject like special relativity with "truth." He thinks that if it works out mathematically, it has to be "true."

He doesn't even realize, as I've said, that his claims that philosophy has nothing to do with science is ITSELF a philosophical position that he believes and advocates without any real philosophical analysis underlying it.

Likewise, these kinds of people, who love to ridicule theology, don't seem to realize that the claim that "there is no God" itself a theological position. It require faith to positively assert that position. It is NOT an empirical question.

1 Reply

kung ano ang isang pag-load ng bollocks !

0 Replies

@fresco,

Read it again.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Read what ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

On co-extensivness: Look it takes no genius to get that by mixing blue with yellow will give you some mix of green...rather the point is to understand what is implied here with "subject" vs object ... if it doesn't have free will the distinction you are doing is meaningless, and the meat of the topic, the so called co-extensiveness, is as simple as a two system interactive phenomena, its not about subjects vs objects its about any system interacting with any other system as shown in the colour mix example...speaking of elegance from an Occam's razor pov, you view is over complicated and has baggage included on the very wording of what "subjects" imply. Obviously Subjectivity itself as a concept is limited by the same rules and tokens the other concepts are. According to your view it shouldn't have an absolute status for referent in language itself, and yet, that is exactly what you do with it!
Knowing little or nothing about myself much less about others I don't have much to say about subjectivity without knowing what subjects have and are being.

1 Reply

It should be obvious but it needs to be spelled, you experience yourself, your subject, exactly in the same way and with the same mechanisms you experience the world. And right at this specific place is where the limit of appealing to subjectivity as an absolute frame of reference ends. You know nothing about yourself any better then you know about the world to distinguish what accommodates what. In any case the experiencing itself, free or not, IS!

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

By using the term 'co -extensive' I am alluding to a pseudo Buddhist holistic position that there is only one system, not two. For everyday purposes we of course consider 'objects' to have existence seperate from 'self', but as Heidegger said, those scenarios are less common than we think and most of the time neither 'self' nor 'object' is present in the experience of 'being'. And 'will' indeed may be a factor in 'being' according to some!
So I'm not going to get into a convoluted 'separate vs nested' systems argument with you. My position is as Maturana said a 'visceral choice' rather than a standard 'analytic one'.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

My position is as Maturana said a 'visceral choice' rather than a standard 'analytic one'.

Now, whooda thunk, I ax ya?

0 Replies

@layman,

Dear Layman, I see you and I we seem to have the same orientation in regard to thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Max is to date no longer posting here, so no longer insisting for nth times that he has physics education and you don't, that is why you can't understand him.

The way I see Max and Fresco and their kind of similar heart and mind, they don't have any anchoring on the ultimate foundation of reality in its biggest picture accessible to man's intelligence.

Modesty, aside, I like to get your feedback on my three, see below, premisses by which I judge the thinking of fellow entities known as belonging to the description of homo sapiens.

Quote:

Dear readers here, I will reproduce my three premisses by which I do critique on other people’s thinking, like for instance, on Fresco, who is to my mind, into name dropping plus technical terms dropping.

Here are the three premisses by which I judge other people’s thinking, to determine whether they make any sense at all in the biggest picture of reality.
Quote:
https://able2know.org/topic/403562-2#post-6479608
https://able2know.org/topic/403562-2#post-6479616

On the basis of the three premisses I put in the preceding post from me, namely:
1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.
3. Existence can be in one’s mind and/or also outside one’s mind and independent of one’s mind.

You say, Layman:
Quote:
In like manner, Max confuses the mathematical tools of physics with physics itself, thinking the two are identical.

And, also likewise, he confuses the internal mathematical consistency of a subject like special relativity with "truth." He thinks that if it works out mathematically, it has to be "true."

Your thought there is reminiscent of the premise from me, the line below in bold:
Quote:
1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.
3. Existence can be in one’s mind and/or also outside one’s mind and independent of one’s mind.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

3. Existence can be in one’s mind and/or also outside one’s mind and independent of one’s mind.

Well, you can get into all kinds of debates about what words like "reality," "existence," etc. mean, but from the latter part of your sentence it's clear that you are a philosophical "realist," unlike Fresky. Wiki's definition of that school of thought is:

Wiki wrote:

Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc....

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to anti-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world).

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Put another way, realists believe that at least some "reality" exists that is ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

My guess would be that at least 99% percent of people, philosophers and otherwise, are realists. Fresky aint in that 99%. He's a subjectivist, a solipsist. No real wonder that you don't see things the way he does, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Dear Layman, have you noticed that our colleagues like Fresco and Maxcondana are not active now here in this thread.

What happened? Have they exhausted their thoughts?

What I and I wished also all posters here to harbor in their heart and mind, is that we all work sincerely and honestly to come to concurrence on the resolution of an issue.

And that is what I don't see with posters here, when they have depleted their mental stock, they stop thinking already.

Let us see whether we can get to concur on what you have said just now in your immediately preceding post, namely, on the the way you go about with critique of my thinking, see Annex 1 below.

Your conditioned trend is to compare what I think with what you see to be similar to what or how other thinkers, like Fresco does, or including in most particular socalled recognized sources like today's Wikipedia of the internet, and also all writers of the past and of today, who figure to be some sort of established 'authorities.'

Now, I propose that you don't bring in these sources, but just think on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Okay, here we go together to work together to concur on my first proposal here, and please bear with me.

What do you think of this first premise of my thinking mind:
"No 1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence." For the rest of my three premisses, please go to Annex 2 below.

Do you from your very own personal thinking accept that premise or not, and why - please, without first already looking up other thinkers and also published thinkers?

At his point I notice that a lot of posters would reply to me that they don't know what I am driving at, and they end up going away, after getting flippant or engaging in evasiveness.

Are you also going to tell me that you don't know what I am driving at?

If you don't get to know what I am driving at, let us you and me work together to concur on what I am driving at, is that okay with you?

______________________

Annex 1

Quote:

Well, you can get into all kinds of debates about what words like "reality," "existence," etc. mean, but from the latter part of your sentence it's clear that you are a philosophical "realist," unlike Fresky. Wiki's definition of that school of thought is:

Wiki wrote:
Quote:
Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc....

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to anti-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world).

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

Annex 2
Quote:
1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.
3. Existence can be in one’s mind and/or also outside one’s mind and independent of one’s mind.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

What do you think of this first premise of my thinking mind:
"No 1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

I'm not sure what (all) you might mean by this, but, truth be told, it sounds like a rather hollow tautology to me. Kinda like "that which exists, exists." In more colloquial terms: "It is what it is."

Fil would probably love it. He's a straight-up Parmenidean.

1 Reply

@layman,

Dear Layman, I see that to you my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," is in effect of no cognitive profit to you, because it is a tautology.

And you also tell me that it reminds you of my being similar to one Fil: "Fil would probably love it. He's a straight-up Parmenidean."

First, I want to tell you that I see you are again into comparing my thinking with the thinking of someone else, like one Fil who according to you is a Parmendean.

Can you not at all abstain from always just comparing someone's else thinking with another someone's else thinking, instead of with your very own personal way of thinking, at all?

Why always with some resources outside your very own personal way of thinking at all; forgive me, don't you have your very own personal way of thinking, at all?

That kind of an approach from your part is not of any profit to me either, as I don't know Fil and much less his way of thinking, and also I don't know what is a Parmenidean, except that the word is supposed to represent a follower of Parmenides, who was an ancient Greek thinker; but at this moment in time I have to look up what is his main contribution to man's knowledge, please wait, I will find out.

. . .

Okay, I am back, and now I am reminded of who and what was Parmenides, see Annex 2 below.

Okay, okay, dear Layman, now let us get to you yourself.

You say that my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of existence is a tautology, and wherefore it is of no cognitive profit to you, is that correct?

Suppose I ask you, as you understand the statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," as to be able to judge that it is a tautology and wherefore of no cognitive profit to you, suppose I ask you:

Please present four examples in the realm of the objective reality of everyday world and life outside and independent of your thinking inside your mind, that represent or correspond to the statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

Will you do that for me and for mankind starting with the readers here?

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what examples from the objective reality of everyday world and life of mankind, Layman will present for us all to read and appreciate: how he understands what is a tautology as he knows of one, namely, the statement from me, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

I tell you, dear readers here, we are now into the adventure of finding out how to get each other to concur on something at all, like whether a tautology is of any cognitive profit at all to mankind or not.
______________________________

Annex 1

Quote:

From Layman:

What do you think of this first premise of my thinking mind:
"No 1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

I'm not sure what (all) you might mean by this, but, truth be told, it sounds like a rather hollow tautology to me. Kinda like "that which exists, exists." In more colloquial terms: "It is what it is."

Fil would probably love it. He's a straight-up Parmenidean.

Annex 2

Quote:

Google: Parmenides

About 1,240,000 results (0.56 seconds)

Search Results

Parmenides - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides
Parmenides of Elea was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher from Elea in Magna Graecia (Greater Greece, included Southern Italy). He was the founder of the ...
Notable ideas‎: ‎"Thought and being are the sa...
Main interests‎: ‎Metaphysics‎, ‎Ontology
School‎: ‎Eleatic school
Era‎: ‎Pre-Socratic philosophy

Parmenides | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
www.iep.utm.edu/parmenid/
Parmenides of Elea was a Presocratic Greek philosopher. As the first philosopher to inquire into the nature of existence itself, he is incontrovertibly credited as ...
‎Life • ‎Parmenides' Poem • ‎Parmenides' Place in the ...

Parmenides (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/
Feb 8, 2008 - Parmenides of Elea, active in the earlier part of the 5th c. BCE, authored a difficult metaphysical poem that has earned him a reputation as early ...
‎Overview of Parmenides ... • ‎Some Principal Types of ... • ‎The Modal Interpretation

Parmenides of Elea > By Individual Philosopher > Philosophy
www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_parmenides.html
Parmenides of Elea (c. 515 - 450 B.C.) was an early Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and founder and chief representative of the Eleatic School of ancient Greek ...

Parmenides - Ancient History Encyclopedia
www.ancient.eu/Parmenides/
Parmenides (c. 485 BCE) of Elea was a Greek philosopher from the colony of Elea in southern Italy. He is known as the founder of the Eleatic School...

Parmenides | Greek philosopher | Britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Parmenides-Greek-philosopher
Parmenides: c. 515 bce Greek philosopher of Elea in southern Italy who founded Eleaticism, one of the leading pre-Socratic schools of Greek thought.
People also ask
What does Parmenides mean?

What did Parmenides do?

What is Zeno known for?

Who is Heraclitus in philosophy?

Feedback

The Internet Classics Archive | Parmenides by Plato
classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.html
He told us that Pythodorus had described to him the appearance of Parmenides and Zeno; they came to Athens, as he said, at the great Panathenaea; the ...

Poem of Parmenides : on nature - Philoctetes
philoctetes.free.fr/parmenidesunicode.htm
POEM OF PARMENIDES English translation : John Burnet (1892) I The steeds that bear me carried me as far as ever my heart. Desired, since they brought me ...

Parmenides, Stage 1
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm
Sep 20, 2016 - Now comes Parmenides — a turning point in the history of western philosophy - for he denies the reality of change. For Parmenides, change is ...

Parmenides | Philosimply | Philosophy Made Easy
www.philosimply.com/philosopher/parmenides
Parmenides was an ancient Greek philosopher born in Elea (a city in southern Italy) in 510 BC. He is best known for discussing the concept of being. What exists ...

Searches related to Parmenides
parmenides theory
parmenides on nature
parmenides biography
when did parmenides die
parmenides books
parmenides definition
parmenides quotes
parmenides meaning

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

1 Reply

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know