THINKERS JULY 16: PHILOSOPHY

Extropia DaSilva: What can philosophy tell us that science cannot?
[2013/07/16 15:32]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): But game centers with a number of legal games – which can often be described as casinos – are legal.
[2013/07/16 15:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now that’s interesting, because the question wouldn’t have made sense in the 18th century!
[2013/07/16 15:32]  Zobeid Zuma: Yeah, I know… they’re like The Cruel Shoes.
[2013/07/16 15:32]  Extropia DaSilva: why not?
[2013/07/16 15:32]  ArtCrash Exonar: It’s hard to sit in a mesh skirt with alpha invisi underneath, it just looks odd
[2013/07/16 15:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Because “science” would just have been “natural philosophy” back then 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:33]  Extropia DaSilva: And things are different now?
[2013/07/16 15:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But I would say…
[2013/07/16 15:33]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Well, a lot of people use the term “science” rather poorly.
[2013/07/16 15:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sure, science is a branch of philosophy 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:33]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Since properly, science is a process, not a specific item.
[2013/07/16 15:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s why scientists still get degrees as Philosophy Doctors 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good point, Tara
[2013/07/16 15:34]  ArtCrash Exonar: Science probably derives itself from philosophy, as it needs to accept deductive logic as a given
[2013/07/16 15:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: On the other hand, the question would be interestingly answered in the 19th century…. science is the branch of philosophy that acquires knowledge through empiricism
[2013/07/16 15:34]  Zobeid Zuma: They may have come from the same root, but science and philosophy have grown apart.
[2013/07/16 15:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Then Popper came up and reshuffled the cards 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:35]  ArtCrash Exonar: Good definition Gwyn
[2013/07/16 15:35]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Maybe philosophy is meta-science?
[2013/07/16 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually, Zo, that was true in the 19th century
[2013/07/16 15:35]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): And math is meta-philosophy?
[2013/07/16 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not so since Popper!
[2013/07/16 15:35]  ArtCrash Exonar: The playing field is much more open in philosophy
[2013/07/16 15:35]  Zobeid Zuma: And have they grown back together since then? I don’t really see it.
[2013/07/16 15:35]  ArtCrash Exonar: Science has a lot of givens.
[2013/07/16 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But it’s actually true!
[2013/07/16 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Philosophy “allows” acquisition of knowledge beyond empiricism,
[2013/07/16 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: but so does science nowadays
[2013/07/16 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, yes, in a sense, they have come together again.
[2013/07/16 15:36]  Zobeid Zuma: Example?
[2013/07/16 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is particularly true in areas like neurology, artificial intelligence, cognitive sciences, athropology, cosmology….
[2013/07/16 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: *anthropology even
[2013/07/16 15:36]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): trying to grasp it by inversion. Non-scientific ist possible. Non-philosophical not so
[2013/07/16 15:37]  ArtCrash Exonar: Science has the givens of ‘we exist’ ‘objects exist’ and ‘others exist’.
[2013/07/16 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Welllllll
[2013/07/16 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Most science, sure
[2013/07/16 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Because the positivist heritage is strong.
[2013/07/16 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But not ALL science.
[2013/07/16 15:37]  Zobeid Zuma: And that we’re not really in The Matrix…. logging into SL from some sort of virtual world. :/
[2013/07/16 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh yes, I wonder what happened to that experiment trying to prove we live in the Matrix… and yes, it was hard science.
[2013/07/16 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: i.e. not fringe science or pseudo-science 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But some guys figured out a way to measure reality and see if we’re a computer simulation or not.
[2013/07/16 15:39]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, I’d say, these days one of the biggest differences between science and philosophy is that science seeks to find ‘measurables’
[2013/07/16 15:39]  Zobeid Zuma: Hard to prove…
[2013/07/16 15:39]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (not really, but that’s for another day)
[2013/07/16 15:39]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): a simulation can eventually break. a reality should not
[2013/07/16 15:39]  Extropia DaSilva: The definition of hard science is that it can make definite calculations, and soft sciences cannot. NOT that hard science is real and anything else is fake science!
[2013/07/16 15:39]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Eeeeeh – I’m a little iffy on their claimed method of doing so – seems to depend too much, to me, on how the simulation is run.
[2013/07/16 15:39]  ArtCrash Exonar: ‘Measurables’ assume that there are discrete things to be measured.
[2013/07/16 15:39]  Second Life: Lilly (taylor.schroeder) is online.
[2013/07/16 15:39]  Zobeid Zuma: Ari, hey! Come on over here! 😀
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Reality breaks on me every day…
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Hi, Ari!
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Ari (arisia.vita): greetings all
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: In a sense, yes, Art, although things get very fuzzy in some areas of science
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Extropia DaSilva: Where you been,. Ari?
[2013/07/16 15:40]  ArtCrash Exonar: All is fuzzy…. heh
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But still,one is always looking for ‘something’ to measure.
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: welcome, Ari!
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Ari (arisia.vita): some friends needed a hug
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Ari (arisia.vita): priorities…
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Extropia DaSilva: 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: whispers: Oh that’s important!
[2013/07/16 15:40]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): good evening Ari
[2013/07/16 15:40]  Zobeid Zuma: Science is an ongoing accumulation of proven knowledge. Sometimes we have to fudge what we mean by “proven” though. It’s not going to be the same in anthropology or economics as it is in mathematics.
[2013/07/16 15:41]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Yes – *VERY* important.
[2013/07/16 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: While philosophy doesn’t care about measurements, they’re irrelevant for acquiring knowledge
[2013/07/16 15:41]  Extropia DaSilva: so what does philosophy DO?
[2013/07/16 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Structures thinking.
[2013/07/16 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree, Zo, but the distinguishing feature of science is that the ‘proof’ usually requires a ‘measurement’
[2013/07/16 15:42]  Zobeid Zuma: And that’s why philosophy can never advance.
[2013/07/16 15:42]  ArtCrash Exonar: Philosophy cares about logical structure in general, no?
[2013/07/16 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: While philosophy can accumulate knowledge without measurement.
[2013/07/16 15:42]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Actually, proof requires repeated measurements.
[2013/07/16 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: In general, yes.
[2013/07/16 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Tara: yes!
[2013/07/16 15:42]  Zobeid Zuma: You can come up with a philosophical idea, and it may be very influential, but after a while somebody else may come up with a different idea that seems more appealing.
[2013/07/16 15:42]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): this “proven theory collection” pretty sharply distincts it from more lofty philosophy
[2013/07/16 15:42]  Extropia DaSilva: what use is knowledge without empirical measurement?
[2013/07/16 15:42]  Zobeid Zuma: Thus, philosophy is a house of cards built on a sand dune.
[2013/07/16 15:43]  ArtCrash Exonar: Science assumes time flows one way, while philosophy can consider otherwise. Does that make math more like philosophy?
[2013/07/16 15:43]  Extropia DaSilva: That sounds like science, Art.
[2013/07/16 15:43]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): would love to promote “if there are two separate areas, they can (always) learn from each others”
[2013/07/16 15:43]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: note that I didn’t say *empirical* measurements. Empiricism is just ONE method of validating measurements 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:43]  Extropia DaSilva: An idea works for a while but then a better idea comes along.
[2013/07/16 15:43]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Zo: that’s not quite correct. While philosophy still has most of its questions open, there are lots of methods of thinking that have been shown to give better results than others.
[2013/07/16 15:43]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): What do you mean “science assumes time flows one way”, ArtCrash?
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Zobeid Zuma: Yeah, I wasn’t taught that in physics class.
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Second Life: Magic Pathfinder (any1.gynoid) is offline.
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Extropia DaSilva: …is that a new hairstyle Art is wearing?
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not “science assumes”. “Some models of physicis” assume that.
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): The damn physicists have been tearing their hair out for the last 50 years or more trying to figure out *WHY* it *appears* to flow in one direction.
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Zobeid Zuma: Why time *appears* to flow one way is a big question in physics.
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Agreed. A philosophical one!
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Second Life: Magic Pathfinder (any1.gynoid) is online.
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Why brains “appear” to have minds….
[2013/07/16 15:44]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Virtually all of their experiments would be quite happy with time flowing either direction.
[2013/07/16 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Why planets “appear” to have climate…
[2013/07/16 15:45]  Zobeid Zuma: Oh, it’s not that big a mystery. It’s all about entropy and thermodynamics.
[2013/07/16 15:45]  Extropia DaSilva: so is a philosphical question a proto-science one?
[2013/07/16 15:45]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Just a couple of odd particle decays that seem to deny that.
[2013/07/16 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, but you have to postulate entropy first
[2013/07/16 15:45]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Wanna bet, Zobeid? Go tell a QM physicist that.
[2013/07/16 15:45]  ArtCrash Exonar: I know of no observation that shows a contradiction to time’s arrow. That is the science part. However lots of philosophy and math can consider time going backwards… no?
[2013/07/16 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: could be, could not be — there are not exactly ‘rules’ in pohilosophy, except, perhaps, “don’t assume everything you think is original; people probably have already thought that 10,000 years ago” 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:46]  Extropia DaSilva: Actually, Zo, entropy is symetric with respect to time. A smashed glass is as unlikely to fix itself if time is reversed as it is if time runs forward.
[2013/07/16 15:46]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Actually, ArtCrash, there are at least three particle decay processes that violate CPT – and the T in that is Time.
[2013/07/16 15:46]  Zobeid Zuma: That doesn’t make sense, Extie.
[2013/07/16 15:46]  Second Life: Magic Pathfinder (any1.gynoid) is offline.
[2013/07/16 15:46]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Depends on how you define entrophy, Zobeid.
[2013/07/16 15:47]  Zobeid Zuma: Well, entropy is information.
[2013/07/16 15:47]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): That’s how we get temperatures lower than absolute zero.
[2013/07/16 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: When one enters the realm of QM, it’s 10% physics, 80% math, and 10% philosophy to try to figure out what it *means*
[2013/07/16 15:47]  Extropia DaSilva: A lot of modern science makes no sense.
[2013/07/16 15:47]  Second Life: Magic Pathfinder (any1.gynoid) is online.
[2013/07/16 15:47]  ArtCrash Exonar: I think a lot of people start to study philosophy thinking it is a substitute for their religious beliefs. But then after a couple of years they get over that and head in other directions…. heh
[2013/07/16 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: … like supersticions? 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:47]  Second Life: Thaddeus Sautereau is offline.
[2013/07/16 15:48]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): And strangely enough, temperatures lower than absolute zero are, in a sense, just under infinitely hot.
[2013/07/16 15:48]  Extropia DaSilva: does philosophy sit between the two magesteria of religion and science?
[2013/07/16 15:48]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, some people talked about proto-science or meta-science. There are some areas of philosophy that have given science its pillars: ontologies, for example
[2013/07/16 15:48]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Philosophy is religion without scripture?
[2013/07/16 15:48]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But philosophy also goes beyond and establishes things like ethics
[2013/07/16 15:48]  Zobeid Zuma: I think philosophy parted ways from religion long before it did from science.
[2013/07/16 15:48]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Philosophy predated religion almost everywhere
[2013/07/16 15:49]  Zobeid Zuma: The closest thing religion has to philosophy is theology, and that’s all really just political. :/
[2013/07/16 15:49]  Second Life: Unnatural Magic is offline.
[2013/07/16 15:49]  Second Life: Magic Pathfinder (any1.gynoid) is offline.
[2013/07/16 15:49]  ArtCrash Exonar: Philosophy shows that belief is a circular argument. That is when religion leaves the realm of philosophy…..
[2013/07/16 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: … and non.-theistic religions don’t even have theology hehe
[2013/07/16 15:50]  Extropia DaSilva: so are we being philsophical now, or is there more to it than just thinking out loud and trying to work out what is what?
[2013/07/16 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: There is structure in philosophy.
[2013/07/16 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: There are fields in philosophy — from aesthetics, to ethics, to ontologies, and so forth
[2013/07/16 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So it’s not merely “thinking out loud ” lol
[2013/07/16 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: *good* philosophies try to cover all fields
[2013/07/16 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Few actually do that
[2013/07/16 15:51]  Zobeid Zuma: /me wonders if being the first to discover philosophy still gets you a free tech advance in Civ5?
[2013/07/16 15:51]  Extropia DaSilva: I mean…when Oxford selects its students for each year, how does it decide who gets to be an undergraduate philosophy student and who does not? What qualifies one?
[2013/07/16 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Philosophers are often lazy and/or stumble upon inconsiistencies in their own formulations, so they are unable to cover everyhting
[2013/07/16 15:51]  Second Life: Magic Pathfinder (any1.gynoid) is online.
[2013/07/16 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh… that’s simple. They have to show that they know how to think critically on their own 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:52]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): and pay some fees. Oxford as a service
[2013/07/16 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: OAAS
[2013/07/16 15:52]  ArtCrash Exonar: An interesting question is when did ‘philosophy’ become separate from ‘belief’. When did it become acceptible to question belief? Was it the Greeks (in the west)?
[2013/07/16 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: On a cloud near you 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:53]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): I thought that was called MOOC now, Gwyn.
[2013/07/16 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: AFAIK, philosophy in Greece predates religion
[2013/07/16 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (yes, very likely 😛 )
[2013/07/16 15:53]  Zobeid Zuma: Didn’t Socrates get convicted for that?
[2013/07/16 15:53]  ArtCrash Exonar: Religion goes back far before there was ever a greek existing….
[2013/07/16 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: There was no “organized” belief for many centuries
[2013/07/16 15:53]  Second Life: Magic Pathfinder (any1.gynoid) is offline.
[2013/07/16 15:53]  Zobeid Zuma: “What do you mean, hemlock is poisonous? I’m a philosopher! I know what is beauty, what is truth… I don’t know what is poisonous and what is not poisonous!”
[2013/07/16 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well sure, Art, but we have no written documents of that 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:54]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): I dunno – Doesn’t Gilgamesh predate Greece?
[2013/07/16 15:54]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe Zo 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:54]  ArtCrash Exonar: Belief goes back to oral traditions of world formation that are culture wide. I call that religion.
[2013/07/16 15:54]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): religions predate writing even
[2013/07/16 15:54]  Second Life: Magic Pathfinder (any1.gynoid) is online.
[2013/07/16 15:54]  ArtCrash Exonar: The fact is that
[2013/07/16 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, perhaps I was not clear. What I meant was that on most places where writing was invented/discovered, *usually* (in that place — not related to OTHER places, where things might have happened earlier) philosophy predates organized belief.
[2013/07/16 15:55]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Yeah, but if you really want to fuck up a society, you need writing so you can have *Organized Religion*
[2013/07/16 15:55]  Second Life: Tama Ahn is offline.
[2013/07/16 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So sure, if we compare Norse religion with Indian philosophy, Indian philosophy was first, but that’s mixing oranges and apples.
[2013/07/16 15:55]  Extropia DaSilva: how does that fuck up a society?
[2013/07/16 15:55]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): (c)(tm)(pat.pend)(take only as directed, scriptures not included)
[2013/07/16 15:56]  Extropia DaSilva: BTW may I remind you all of the topic…
[2013/07/16 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: tara, to prove that claim, you would have to give an example of a society without religion 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:56]  Extropia DaSilva: What can philosophy tell us that science cannot?
[2013/07/16 15:56]  ArtCrash Exonar: The fact is that ’cause and effect’ reasoning goes back probably deep into our primitive pre human past. That is similar to what we call ‘scientific thinking’ today, no?
[2013/07/16 15:56]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): *blergs*
[2013/07/16 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well I already gave you a few examples, Extie. Broadly speaking, everything that is not measurable. Typical examples: ontologies, ethics, aesthetics… but you have far more.
[2013/07/16 15:57]  Zobeid Zuma: I suppose it can help us find (or invent) meaning.
[2013/07/16 15:57]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Is no such thing as “scientific thinking”. Is test, retest, keep retesting until satisfied, keep eye out for test breakers.
[2013/07/16 15:57]  ArtCrash Exonar: I wonder if at some hard wired brain level, aesthetics IS measurable?
[2013/07/16 15:57]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Art: aye, for 19th century empiricists 🙂 These days, we have causes without effects, effects without causes, observations without observers, and we call it science. Hah!
[2013/07/16 15:57]  Zobeid Zuma: Science describes our world, doesn’t tell us why we should care about it, or what we should want from it.
[2013/07/16 15:57]  Extropia DaSilva: But can it actually provide answers to these immeasurable aspects of reality or is it all just talk?
[2013/07/16 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Art: you can wonder as much as you wish 😉 … but if you do a study, then it’s science. If you wonder, it’s philosophy 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: science is just talk!
[2013/07/16 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: We’re the Talking Monkeys!
[2013/07/16 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: Dualism versus materialism for example. How do you know which is the right way to view consciousness without measurement?
[2013/07/16 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: More precisely, the story-telling chimpanzees.
[2013/07/16 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: science is not just talk.
[2013/07/16 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Science is telling good stories 🙂
[2013/07/16 15:59]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: meaning: stories that anyone can validate for themselves hehe
[2013/07/16 15:59]  Extropia DaSilva: YOu do not determine the speed of light in a vacuum by walking around and chatting.
[2013/07/16 15:59]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Philosophy is exploring the range of a subject until mathematics can be applied.
[2013/07/16 15:59]  Second Life: luisa (luisa.bourgoin) is offline.
[2013/07/16 15:59]  ArtCrash Exonar: I am thinking ethics is a pragmatic response to living in groups successfully It is a human only concept.
[2013/07/16 15:59]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): One you can test, retest, and apply mathematics, it becomes subject to the scientific method.
[2013/07/16 15:59]  Zobeid Zuma: We also have events with neither a cause or an effect. See here –> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
[2013/07/16 16:00]  Second Life: Tama Ahn is online.
[2013/07/16 16:00]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: As for dualism vs. materialism, basically you just follow each aspect of each proposal and reason it through to its ultimate consequences. If you do that, BOTH will be wrong. No measurements needed, just plain old logic.
[2013/07/16 16:00]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (Zo: thatg’s what I meant!)
[2013/07/16 16:00]  Extropia DaSilva: eh?
[2013/07/16 16:00]  Extropia DaSilva: Gwyn you make no sense.
[2013/07/16 16:00]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Do we actually *know* that virtual particles have no cause?
[2013/07/16 16:00]  Second Life: Ivy Sunkiller is offline.
[2013/07/16 16:00]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): And they do have effects – masking off electric charge, for one.
[2013/07/16 16:00]  ArtCrash Exonar: I don’t think we know that, Tara, some have speculated that.
[2013/07/16 16:00]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’d need 15 minutes to show you, Extie 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:01]  Second Life: Flenser Juergens is online.
[2013/07/16 16:01]  Extropia DaSilva: you have 29
[2013/07/16 16:01]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: After Thinkers perhaps?
[2013/07/16 16:01]  Second Life: luisa (luisa.bourgoin) is online.
[2013/07/16 16:02]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Naah Thinkers is not good to present long arguments 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:02]  Extropia DaSilva: Put it on a notecard and then I can send it back to you with notes showing you where you went wrong.
[2013/07/16 16:02]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): my simulation just breaked. this is not reality
[2013/07/16 16:02]  ArtCrash Exonar: Just because one doesn’t know a cause, it is not proof that there is no cause.
[2013/07/16 16:02]  Extropia DaSilva: so what DOES prove no cause?
[2013/07/16 16:03]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not “me”, Extie, I cannot claim any credit on that; I’ll follow the arguments of Nagarjuna, which lived in the 4th century CE 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:03]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Well, according to science, you can’t actually *prove* a negative like that.
[2013/07/16 16:03]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s an excellent philosophical question, Extie 😉
[2013/07/16 16:03]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly, tara
[2013/07/16 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And according to MOST philosophies, you can only use that as axioms, but not derive it from other axioms
[2013/07/16 16:04]  ArtCrash Exonar: Philosophy posits one example of no cause and that is ‘existence’.
[2013/07/16 16:04]  Extropia DaSilva: existence exists.
[2013/07/16 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: e.g. “Axiom 1: Some things have no cause”. Then one can follow it through and see if it stumbles upon contradictions or not.
[2013/07/16 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: You’re a good Objectivist, Extie 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:04]  Second Life: Ivy Sunkiller is online.
[2013/07/16 16:05]  Second Life: Lilly (taylor.schroeder) is offline.
[2013/07/16 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Right, Art
[2013/07/16 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So you have to posit it
[2013/07/16 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not deduce it.
[2013/07/16 16:05]  ArtCrash Exonar: Circular arguments are not causes.
[2013/07/16 16:05]  Extropia DaSilva: That is what Spinoza said. There has to be a causeless cause, otherwise we have an infinite regress.
[2013/07/16 16:05]  Zobeid Zuma: And he was wrong, of course.
[2013/07/16 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, he was wrong, but it’s not so easy to say why!
[2013/07/16 16:06]  Extropia DaSilva: he positied something whose very nature is to exist, and everything else is an aspect of this eternal essence.
[2013/07/16 16:06]  Second Life: Thaddeus Sautereau is online.
[2013/07/16 16:06]  Zobeid Zuma: Philosophers are always stating the obvious, which turns out to be wrong.
[2013/07/16 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let’s just say he was right in a finite universe 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:06]  Extropia DaSilva: I disagree, Zo.
[2013/07/16 16:06]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): infinity is not that scary
[2013/07/16 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ha! The philosophers I like to read are always stating what is not obvious, which turns out to be harder to prove 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:06]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t think he’s even right if the universe is finite.
[2013/07/16 16:06]  ArtCrash Exonar: Does one need to know what is ‘right’ in order to show what is ‘wrong’?
[2013/07/16 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: He might not be, Zo, but that would definitely be beyond me.
[2013/07/16 16:07]  Extropia DaSilva: You make it sound like all philosphers do is talk nonsense, but make it so complicated-sounding people assume it is profound.
[2013/07/16 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sadly, some do just that
[2013/07/16 16:07]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t know if that’s all they do, but they do seem to do quite a lot of it.
[2013/07/16 16:07]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): To find what is right, find what is left and see the opposite.
[2013/07/16 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But that would be like bashing at science, just because there are lots of pseudo-scientists
[2013/07/16 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or at democracy, because all politicians are corrupt 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:08]  ArtCrash Exonar: Extie, that was Hegel’s trick. Make it incomprehensible and people with think it is profound! haha
[2013/07/16 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, yes, sure, there are terrible philosophers
[2013/07/16 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Namely, for me, any philosopher who is not interested in following through their reasoning to establish an example for life (namely: deriving ethics and living according their ethics), is completely missing the point.
[2013/07/16 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And there are very few like that.
[2013/07/16 16:09]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Living or otherwise 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:09]  Zobeid Zuma: Anyhow, the whole “there has to be a causeless cause” assumes that cause-and-effect only works in one direction, which is really counter to what we know of physics.
[2013/07/16 16:09]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, but Spinoza didn’t know that in the 17th century 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And who knows what QM will find out in the 22nd century… lol
[2013/07/16 16:10]  Zobeid Zuma: And maybe someday we’ll know enough to formulate a philosophy on solid ground. :/
[2013/07/16 16:10]  ArtCrash Exonar: I have to say i have benefitted greatly from studying the ideas of multiple philosophers. It filled in all the edges and corners of my worldviews. So I must say philosophy has benefit. But it actually led me to become more pragmatic in my approach and adopt science as my method.
[2013/07/16 16:10]  Extropia DaSilva: solid ground? No such thing according to QM;)
[2013/07/16 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Zo: that would be like saying, “maybe one day we’ll find a GUT”
[2013/07/16 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But Gödel already proved that’s impossible
[2013/07/16 16:11]  Extropia DaSilva: I agree with Art..
[2013/07/16 16:11]  Zobeid Zuma: Eh?
[2013/07/16 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So I can very well imagine that philsophy will never have “solid ground”, but just an approximation to work with
[2013/07/16 16:11]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t know of Gödel getting into that.
[2013/07/16 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Some will lead to interesting constructs
[2013/07/16 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sure he did
[2013/07/16 16:11]  Second Life: Unnatural Magic is online.
[2013/07/16 16:11]  Extropia DaSilva: Godel showed it was impossible for gravity to ever be incorporated into quantum physics?
[2013/07/16 16:12]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, lol
[2013/07/16 16:12]  Extropia DaSilva: well that is what GUT tries to do.
[2013/07/16 16:12]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Just that you cannot have a theory that explains *every* aspect of the universe.
[2013/07/16 16:12]  Zobeid Zuma: He’s most famous for showing that every system of predicate logic must have assertions that are true but cannot be proven.
[2013/07/16 16:12]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sure, that’s Soft GUT 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:12]  Second Life: Lucius Diller is offline.
[2013/07/16 16:12]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Cannot be proven *inside* the logic system
[2013/07/16 16:13]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s quite a leap from there to saying there can’t be a GUT.
[2013/07/16 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: A tiny leap, Zo. It means that this universe will always contain rules that cannot be described with anything in this universe — you’d need to step outside the universe to explain this one. But that’s absurd.
[2013/07/16 16:13]  Extropia DaSilva: They call it the theory of everything but they only mean everything relevant to their area of expertise. They do NOT mean an equation which tells you everything from next week’s lottery draw to when you will meet your future husband and so on:)
[2013/07/16 16:14]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Right, Extie — that’s what I meant — THOSE kinds of theories are impossible.
[2013/07/16 16:14]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Unifying QM and Gravity, well, that’s peanuts
[2013/07/16 16:14]  Extropia DaSilva: (he is sat next to me, in case you really wanted to know, gwyn ;))
[2013/07/16 16:14]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Peanuts that – to date – have eluded us.
[2013/07/16 16:14]  ArtCrash Exonar: Another thought on grand unified theories is that things could have different rules at different scales, both of time and space….
[2013/07/16 16:15]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: We’re using two wrong approaches to get a right one — no wonder there are no results, Tara 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:15]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Even though, oddly, there is a very *simple* extension to Maxwell’s Equations that unifies EM and Gravity…
[2013/07/16 16:15]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): It doesn’t work to link Gravity to EM to WNF.
[2013/07/16 16:15]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: What’s “WNF”??
[2013/07/16 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah
[2013/07/16 16:16]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Sorry – Weak Nuclear Force
[2013/07/16 16:16]  Extropia DaSilva: Anyway my point is Godel did not say the GUT was impossible, only that there can never be a logical system which can tell you whether a mathematical thoerem is true or not.
[2013/07/16 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Right hehe
[2013/07/16 16:16]  Second Life: Lucius Diller is online.
[2013/07/16 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: See, Extie, that’s philosophy: figuring out what Gödel’s theorems imply or not 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:16]  Extropia DaSilva: or rather…that there will always be some truths which cannot be proved true.
[2013/07/16 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The same applies to QM
[2013/07/16 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: There are, at this moment, I believe, nine different interpretations of QM
[2013/07/16 16:17]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): You know, with neutrinos actually having a really tiny mass – they *could* act as a medium range force vector particle.
[2013/07/16 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: All are philosophy. They cannot be all true.
[2013/07/16 16:17]  ArtCrash Exonar: What is throwing everything for a loop these days is the observation of universe accelerated expansion. I think this shows we are not close to a Universe model yet. Unless change over time changes the rules, which could be the case.
[2013/07/16 16:18]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Which will make things SO interesting…. hehe
[2013/07/16 16:18]  Zobeid Zuma: I once had an explanation for that, but I forgot it. 😛
[2013/07/16 16:18]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): “Dark Energy”, Zobeid.
[2013/07/16 16:18]  Second Life: Ivy Sunkiller is offline.
[2013/07/16 16:18]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Personally, I think that the biggest challenge for science in the 21st century is to explain why emergent properties emerge 🙂 — and this, right now, is pure philosophy
[2013/07/16 16:18]  Zobeid Zuma: No, it was something much more fiendishly clever than that!
[2013/07/16 16:18]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[2013/07/16 16:18]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Because the physicists don’t want to use the word “magic”
[2013/07/16 16:19]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: shh
[2013/07/16 16:19]  ArtCrash Exonar: I think it is a definite ‘article of faith’ to project micro structures of QM to the universal scale. They might have very little to do with each other.
[2013/07/16 16:19]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): The problem is that Relativity *predicts* “dark energy” – but that makes it even *HARDER* to unify QM and Relativity.
[2013/07/16 16:19]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: They got rid of magic once we managed to get effects without causes and observations without observers — that’s magic!
[2013/07/16 16:20]  Zobeid Zuma: Nahh…
[2013/07/16 16:20]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s counter-intuitive, but so what? Einstein was counter-intuitive too.
[2013/07/16 16:20]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): we have not gathered online to explain magic. oh, btw, we could redo crypto currencies one tuesday, again
[2013/07/16 16:20]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: That USED to be the definition of magic while empiricism ruled science!
[2013/07/16 16:21]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Well, for the average US citizen, you could replace “electricity” with “magic” and they would be about as enlightened.
[2013/07/16 16:21]  Zobeid Zuma: You are making a mountain out of a molehill, Gwyn.
[2013/07/16 16:21]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Look, don’t blame history on me lol
[2013/07/16 16:21]  Zobeid Zuma: We still have cause and effect. It just has defined end-points now.
[2013/07/16 16:21]  ArtCrash Exonar: Magic can be defined as ‘lack of knowlege of cause’. And that is where we are in astrophysics, it’s all magic! heh
[2013/07/16 16:22]  Zobeid Zuma: Cause-and-effect chains don’t have to extend into the infinite past and infinite future. They can have a beginning and an end.
[2013/07/16 16:22]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: 19th century empiricism was founded on the principle that everything had causes and that observations needed observers. Everything else was magic, superstition, or religion, and, as such, easy to disprove as nonsense.
[2013/07/16 16:22]  ArtCrash Exonar: Interesting point, Zo
[2013/07/16 16:22]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Right, Art!
[2013/07/16 16:22]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: and yes, ZO
[2013/07/16 16:22]  Zobeid Zuma: And in the case of a quantum vacuum fluctuation, the beginning and end are the same thing.
[2013/07/16 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s a GOOD explanatioN!
[2013/07/16 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Excellent, Zo 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me claps
[2013/07/16 16:23]  ArtCrash Exonar: vacuum fluctuation sounds a bit like what a toilet does….. heh
[2013/07/16 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Art
[2013/07/16 16:23]  Second Life: Flenser Juergens is offline.
[2013/07/16 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But I like that very much. I’ll remember it, Zo.
[2013/07/16 16:24]  Zobeid Zuma: /me is glad to be helpful! 😀
[2013/07/16 16:24]  ArtCrash Exonar: I think what has been surprising in modern science is that there are no infinities.
[2013/07/16 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: No?
[2013/07/16 16:25]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): *BLINKS*
[2013/07/16 16:25]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): There’s all *KINDS* of infinities.
[2013/07/16 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would have thought as much.
[2013/07/16 16:25]  ArtCrash Exonar: There are no infinities in nature that I know of.
[2013/07/16 16:25]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): QM runs off of dividing infinity by infinity to get a number – they call it “renormalization”
[2013/07/16 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: … granted the superstring freaks wanted to get rid of infinities and singularities, but they’re not fashionable these days.
[2013/07/16 16:26]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): We don’t have the tools to verify infinities or infinitesimals.
[2013/07/16 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah well, Art. This sounds like the discussions between theoreticists and experimentalists in physics 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:26]  Extropia DaSilva: That branch of science has been in and out of fashion since the 50s.
[2013/07/16 16:27]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: maybe it rebounds again in a few decades 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:27]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): We can *think* the gravity well of a black hole is infinitely deep – but we can’t verify it.
[2013/07/16 16:27]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I like it because it’s so elegant, but if it actually doesn’t provide anything worth measuring, then it’s a dead end for science (but not for philosophy!)
[2013/07/16 16:27]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): *chuckles* Well, one branch of String Theory got a boot to the ghoolies with the discovery of the Higgs boson.
[2013/07/16 16:27]  ArtCrash Exonar: My mind was sent spinning by reading an article on the rise and fall of plate tectonics on earth, which peaked at about 1.1 billion years ago and is now declining. It brought home to me the finite nature of the earth…
[2013/07/16 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hehe 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:28]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): It ruled out much – if not most – of the SuperSymmetry possibilities.
[2013/07/16 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Alas! Another theory gone south 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:28]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): And SUSY is transformable by M-Theory into any of the other 5 major String Theories.
[2013/07/16 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So theoretically all of them are wrong? 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:29]  Zobeid Zuma: We live on a dying planet. Plate tectonics drives the carbon cycle, and it’s gradually grinding to a halt.
[2013/07/16 16:29]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Most likely, Gwyneth – there’s still a little bit of room, I think.
[2013/07/16 16:29]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Heh. They just need to try harder, I guess
[2013/07/16 16:29]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Maybe.
[2013/07/16 16:29]  Zobeid Zuma: It’ll become uninhabitable in another 100 or 200 million years — not billions of years from now when the sun burns out, as people keep claiming.
[2013/07/16 16:29]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): I’m just not sure about the “holographic universe” idea.
[2013/07/16 16:30]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): There’d always been something bugging me about that…
[2013/07/16 16:30]  ArtCrash Exonar: I immediately thought of how Mars was once dynamic and is now dead.
[2013/07/16 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I find it interesting, but… the difficulty, again, will be to get a way to measure it, Tara
[2013/07/16 16:30]  Zobeid Zuma: Yeah, Mars and Venus both probably had their habitable phases too.
[2013/07/16 16:30]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): And then I realized what was wrong when we say that a hologram captures a 3-D space.
[2013/07/16 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: What was wrong with that?
[2013/07/16 16:30]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): It only captures the surfaces of 3D objects – but can’t give us any information about their interiors.
[2013/07/16 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aha!
[2013/07/16 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Interesting 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:31]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): You can take a hologram of a ball, and view it from all sides – *EXCEPT* inside!
[2013/07/16 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Very interesting 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:31]  Zobeid Zuma: Fun to cam inside things (and avs) in SL, isn’t it? 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Zo
[2013/07/16 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: SL breaks reality in more ways than one!
[2013/07/16 16:32]  Zobeid Zuma: The mouth parts are icky, tho!
[2013/07/16 16:32]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): since a hologram is somehow stored as a 3d structure, there was no room for storing another 3d strucure inside, anyways
[2013/07/16 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: indeed yuck
[2013/07/16 16:32]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Over and over I see it said that holograms reduce 3 dimensions to 2…
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Maybe the maths for 2 dimensions are easier than 3?
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): And I got to wondering one day if a 3D hologram might not capture a 4D object, and then that 3D hologram be treated as an object to be reduced to a 2D hologram…
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t think that really pertains to the “holographic universe” concept, tho.
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Ari (arisia.vita): it’s been great listening to you all but I must run now, and after what Zo said the first thing I’m going to do is brush my teeth….
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): It does and it doesn’t, Zobeid.
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Ari
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Ari (arisia.vita): be well and happy
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Zobeid Zuma: Haha!
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Hi, Ari!
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hm. And 11D objects on the M-Theory could be reduced iteratively to just a 2D hologram? Hmmmm
[2013/07/16 16:33]  Ari (arisia.vita): see you again soon
[2013/07/16 16:34]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): see you Ari
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Take care, Ari!
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Second Life: Flenser Juergens is online.
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Spread your hugs around 🙂
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Right, Gwyneth – I really don’t think that’s going to fly.
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Zobeid Zuma: The idea of our universe being merely some sort of mathematical expression has been around for a while… long before the computer simulation argument, even.
[2013/07/16 16:34]  ArtCrash Exonar: phone call…. back
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Second Life: Ari (arisia.vita) is offline.
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh yes, Zo!
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Oh, indeed, Zobeid.
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: wb Art
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): All the way back to the Pythagoreans, I think.
[2013/07/16 16:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think so too
[2013/07/16 16:35]  ArtCrash Exonar: so when it comes to dimensions. Is it generally accepted that time is the first or the fourth dimension?
[2013/07/16 16:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well and it is ONE of the possible interpretations of QM too
[2013/07/16 16:35]  Extropia DaSilva: Oh…
[2013/07/16 16:35]  Zobeid Zuma: A simulation implies some sort of higher reality in which the simulation is implemented, but the equation idea does not.
[2013/07/16 16:35]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): And does SL need Pytha Goreans running around with the regular Goreans?
[2013/07/16 16:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Time for a poem?
[2013/07/16 16:35]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): time comes for sure at a premium
[2013/07/16 16:35]  Extropia DaSilva: Coming back from IM I see my time is up.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in after thinkers and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to THINKERS JULY 16: PHILOSOPHY

  1. I’ll address a question you asked in this discussion:

    What does philosophy do?

    Jest about Goreans aside, philosophy (from which science branched out) can enable us to ask the right questions, as pointed out by Slavoj Zizek:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s