Philosophy is Bunk!

Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.
User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:08 pm

[quote=""Iolo""]

You get fantasies like Plato's obsessing the world for many centuries, as you know. Good literature surpasses philosophical blathering by many miles, because it relates to lived experience.[/quote]

Jesu ... I always thought I was alone in thinking that. Aristotle was worse. People are still Aristotlian today, 2500 years later. That's how long we've been retarded by that pair.

User avatar
Cheerful Charlie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:12 am

Post by Cheerful Charlie » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:32 pm

[quote=""Iolo""]
subsymbolic;677875 wrote:
Iolo;677871 wrote:It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.
Really.

Quite apart from that being one specific school of philosophy among many, perhaps you'd like to explain why arguing about the precise meaning of words is pointless.
Because it encourages people to spend time trying to define imaginary concepts, for a start.[/QUOTE]

For that you need pataphysics. Alfred Jarry.

Imaginary solutions to imaginary problems.
Cheerful Charlie

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:36 pm

[quote=""Grendel""]
Iolo;677904 wrote:
You get fantasies like Plato's obsessing the world for many centuries, as you know. Good literature surpasses philosophical blathering by many miles, because it relates to lived experience.
Jesu ... I always thought I was alone in thinking that. Aristotle was worse. People are still Aristotlian today, 2500 years later. That's how long we've been retarded by that pair.[/QUOTE]

How about an argument to support your position?

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:40 pm

I had never heard of Alfred Jarry. I read all about him. He would have been a great guy to get stoned with.

Thanx for that one.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:09 am

[quote=""subsymbolic""]

How about an argument to support your position?[/quote]

Science shows that our ideas of composite entities are bunk. Philosophers must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

That's a statement, not an argument. The proof (which I presume is what you mean by argument) is given by particle physics. In particular, the chapter in the book, (there is a link above) 'In defence of Science' gives a very good philosophical introduction to this statement.

Much better than I can articulate. That's my argument.

User avatar
Copernicus
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Copernicus » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:14 am

[quote=""Iolo""]It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.[/quote]
Speaking as a linguist, I would like to point out that philosophers are not failed linguists. I would further like to point out that arguing about the 'meaning' of words is something that most of us do in our daily conversations. Linguistic expressions have no inherent meaning independent of the contexts that we use them in, but, given a context, they can have very clear, definable meanings. If it were pointless to argue about word meanings, then it would be pointless to say anything at all.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:02 am

I think the best essay I ever read on linguistics and it's importance was written by a guy called Oliver LaFarge 'Scientists are lonely men'. I have a written version. I can't find it on the net.

Until I read that I just took language for granted.

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:15 am

[quote=""Grendel""]Philosophy and Metaphysics separated from Science not long after Science separated from Alchemy.

Metaphysics and philosophy are simply illusions that are plausible to the self-aware intelligence. They are the last-religion.

Philosophy can not deal with the laws of physics. Firstly it doesn't understand them because they have passed beyond it's comprehension. Secondly, Science no longer requires an explanation that needs any kind of metaphysics.

There is only one option for philosophy to adopt if it wishes to remain valid, and that is to understand the Laws of Physics ... and that is something it cannot do without discarding everything it has ever stood for.

This is something I have known for 20 years, but evidently I'm not alone any longer in dismissing all philosophy, all metaphysics, all charlatans tho they know it not.

Philosophy no longer contributes a single solutary thing to our lives or our culture, it's an Albatross around our necks. It, like all religion, all spiritually, all metaphysics is nothing more than Bunk!

Here is the germ that philosophy must adopt to remain relevant.

THROW EVERYTHING OUT AND START AGAIN

Welcome to a more relevant world.[/quote]
the assumption that the only things that matter are addressed by physical models is a pretty hard one to support from my pov.

Curious, how do you feel about economics as a discipline? And what do you think about map-territory errors and reification fallacies?

ETA: I hadn't noticed the link in your OP. After reading it, I think there is some validity to the criticisms it offers. However, there are lots of rabbit holes in philosophy and not all philosophers burrow in the ones mentioned. There is, after all, a known phenomenon colloquially called "Making Shit Up" and it isn't restricted to any unique discipline.

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:26 am

[quote=""Grendel""]There are heaps of reviews on the book. But this is a good summary.

Every Thing Must Go argues that the only kind of metaphysics that can contribute to objective knowledge is one based specifically on contemporary science as it really is, and not on philosophers' a priori intuitions, common sense, or simplifications of science.

In addition to showing how recent metaphysics has drifted away from connection with all other serious scholarly inquiry as a result of not heeding this restriction, they demonstrate how to build a metaphysics compatible with current fundamental physics ('ontic structural realism'), which, when combined with their metaphysics of the special sciences ('rainforest realism'), can be used to unify physics with the other sciences without reducing these sciences to physics itself.

Taking science metaphysically seriously, Ladyman and Ross argue, means that metaphysicians must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.[/quote]

Speaking as a scientist, "science as it really is" is the back of a simpleton's business card. I tend to agree that a metaphysics compatible with modern physics would be a handy thing. I am not holding out much hope for that though.

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:29 am

[quote=""Grendel""]Here's a link to the book. I don't know how long it will stay up. But it appears that you can copy and save it.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... ust-go.pdf

In answer to the difference between metaphysicians and philsophers ... then there is none. Metaphysics dominates philosophy.[/quote]

The role of metaphor in metaphysics fascinates me. Apropos of nothing I suppose.

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:32 am

[quote=""Iolo""]It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.[/quote]

Assuming 3rd person objectivity is applicable to language would be a violation of useful metaphysics but could be consistent with a metaphysics that is consistent with science. Can you give an example of what you mean here?

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:36 am

[quote=""plebian""]
the assumption that the only things that matter are addressed by physical models is a pretty hard one to support from my pov. [/quote]

I don't think I have said that? What I said, I hope, is that philosophy is no longer 'based' on a physical model, but a metaphysical one. It no longer addresses reality and as such we need a new philosophy. One that can account for the laws of physics. No philosophy does that at the moment.



[quote=""plebian""]
Curious, how do you feel about economics as a discipline? And what do you think about map-territory errors and reification fallacies?[/quote]

I think that dimensions are mistaken for entities routinely. Dimensions are no more than measurements. Each dimension is just a different measurement, an asymmetric measurement. They are not real, not entities.

By treating them as entities which our current education system does, leads to heuristic beliefs and acceptance.

But I do get your point, I think, how do I know I'm not misled. My answer to that can only be that I try to be as objective as possible. I try to keep to the fore-front and abreast of collective scientific opinion and to dismiss my personal bias whenever new science outrages my beliefs.

I don't understand the context of your economics reference. But I don't underrate it's importance to life on earth?

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:56 am

[quote=""plebian""]

ETA: I hadn't noticed the link in your OP. After reading it, I think there is some validity to the criticisms it offers. However, there are lots of rabbit holes in philosophy and not all philosophers burrow in the ones mentioned. There is, after all, a known phenomenon colloquially called "Making Shit Up" and it isn't restricted to any unique discipline.[/quote]

Look, this link is not meant to reflect on philosophers only. We all do this. But if we are aware that we are doing it then that is a step towards objectivity.

CLICK ME

:)

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:45 am

[quote=""Grendel""]
subsymbolic;677933 wrote:
How about an argument to support your position?
Science shows that our ideas of composite entities are bunk. Philosophers must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

That's a statement, not an argument. The proof (which I presume is what you mean by argument) is given by particle physics. In particular, the chapter in the book, (there is a link above) 'In defence of Science' gives a very good philosophical introduction to this statement.

Much better than I can articulate. That's my argument.[/QUOTE]

So, you are saying Buddha had it figured out 2500 years ago? Anyway, please offer a useful metaphysics which incorporates QFT. Or, short of that, show me a QFT that scales to human perspective scales and where time and gravity are consistent with GR. That would probably qualify as a metaphysics though.

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:03 am

[quote=""Grendel""]
plebian;677952 wrote: the assumption that the only things that matter are addressed by physical models is a pretty hard one to support from my pov.
I don't think I have said that? What I said, I hope, is that philosophy is no longer 'based' on a physical model, but a metaphysical one. It no longer addresses reality and as such we need a new philosophy. One that can account for the laws of physics. No philosophy does that at the moment.

[/QUOTE]
I don't think even physics does that.

[quote=""plebian""]
Curious, how do you feel about economics as a discipline? And what do you think about map-territory errors and reification fallacies?
I think that dimensions are mistaken for entities routinely. Dimensions are no more than measurements. Each dimension is just a different measurement, an asymmetric measurement. They are not real, not entities.

By treating them as entities which our current education system does, leads to heuristic beliefs and acceptance.

But I do get your point, I think, how do I know I'm not misled. My answer to that can only be that I try to be as objective as possible. I try to keep to the fore-front and abreast of collective scientific opinion and to dismiss my personal bias whenever new science outrages my beliefs.

I don't understand the context of your economics reference. But I don't underrate it's importance to life on earth?[/quote]
I asked about economics because it is strangely based in philosophical assumptions that the discipline takes great pains to obscure. To do away with philosophy would be to hand over the power to make rules to the best propagandist. Which, arguably is what America has done. What you are calling objectivity sounds suspiciously like the program outlined by Francis Bacon in his Novo Organum and itself is a philosophical premise. Albeit, an incredibly utilitarian premise.

But the problem with that sort of systems thinking for me is that there is enough chaos and only nonlinearity out there that Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" would be more aptly titled "the unreasonable ability to get pretty darn close to accurate predictions using mathematics".

While I don't really have a preferred ism, there are some ideas brought up by idealists that really don't have a good accounting through science. The idea of motive/intention and its relationship to what we choose to examine and reify is just plain out there as a head scratcher. While lots of individuals have pursued and are pursuing lines of inquiry down that general path, there is no current way to get at it from science that I am aware of. Science cannot model a model because the added recursive layer leaves nothing to measure.

But anyway, I guess it feels a little bit funny to make pronouncements about what other people should do in the same breath that I would deny a role for philosophy.

ETA: You did get my point that we can't really know if we're being misled because words are slippery beasts. It's hard to even agree on a metaphysics that considers them either real or imaginary.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:38 am

[quote=""plebian""]

So, you are saying Buddha had it figured out 2500 years ago? [/quote]

I have no idea what Buddha said or when.

[quote=""plebian""]
Anyway, please offer a useful metaphysics which incorporates QFT. Or, short of that, show me a QFT that scales to human perspective scales and where time and gravity are consistent with GR. That would probably qualify as a metaphysics though.[/quote]

Well ... the book? The book gives a useful meta-physics. It's linked in a post above.

When you say scale QFT to human perspective what you're really saying is 'explain it in terms I can understand and if you can't you're wrong' 😛

And you want me to explain time and gravity in terms of quantum mechanics? 😛

To start a little, Time is an asymmetrical measurement, Gravity is a field. You've linked them together in a way that gives me no insight as to what you're asking. The one outstanding issue confronting Science is it does not have a fundamental understanding of mass. Tho it is close. To the point where it can predict the properties of the particle, or at least some of them. In other words the graviton must come in close to correct weight.

That will allow Gravity to be unified with the other three fields. A Unified Theory. (The other three have already been unified)

But if you mean connect them in concept, the small and the big, then according to your current view (a classical one, implied by your post) then you would say that the earth could be moved out from the sun by 1 metre increase in radius (provided the acceleration etc was corrected and accounted for. In other words all else being equal) and there it would orbit perfectly. Further that any desired radius increase could be implemented, half a metre, a billionth of a metre, 0.7435691032 of a Metre.

But this is not true. Only quantified orbits are allowed. This can be observed at the very little level. The math which proves and reflects the observations, when scaled up to the very big (the earth) still produces only quantified orbits. But the large variables of scale produce quantified orbits that are so close together as to reflect 'analog' properties for orbital values rather the 'digital'. And hence classical math tumbles.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:49 am

[quote=""plebian""]
To do away with philosophy would be to hand over the power to make rules to the best propagandist..[/quote]

You don't think, upon reflection, that this is somewhat of an unreasonable view? When you challenge any person who holds spiritual or religious beliefs on their beliefs this is the standard knee jerk response.

A fear of anarchy, a fear of change. You must know how shallow it sounds when used by them. You have just said earlier that you would welcome a meta-physics tethered to reality, but you fear it cannot happen. Now you know the obstacles it faces, fear of change, loss of lifetime investment. When the paradigm changes it affects everybody with an interested stake. Anxiety over change shouldn't overpower the reality.

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:56 am

[quote=""Grendel""]
plebian;677959 wrote:
So, you are saying Buddha had it figured out 2500 years ago?
I have no idea what Buddha said or when.

[quote=""plebian""]
Anyway, please offer a useful metaphysics which incorporates QFT. Or, short of that, show me a QFT that scales to human perspective scales and where time and gravity are consistent with GR. That would probably qualify as a metaphysics though.[/quote]

Well ... the book? The book gives a useful meta-physics. It's linked in a post above.

When you say scale QFT to human perspective what you're really saying is 'explain it in terms I can understand and if you can't you're wrong' 😛

And you want me to explain time and gravity in terms of quantum mechanics? 😛

To start a little, Time is an asymmetrical measurement, Gravity is a field. You've linked them together in a way that gives me no insight as to what you're asking. The one outstanding issue confronting Science is it does not have a fundamental understanding of mass. Tho it is close. To the point where it can predict the properties of the particle, or at least some of them. In other words the graviton must come in close to correct weight.

[/QUOTE]The [hypothetical] graviton has mass?

That will allow Gravity to be unified with the other three fields. A Unified Theory. (The other three have already been unified)

But if you mean connect them in concept, the small and the big, then according to your current view (a classical one, implied by your post) then you would say that the earth could be moved out from the sun by 1 metre increase in radius (provided the acceleration etc was corrected and accounted for. In other words all else being equal) and there it would orbit perfectly. Further that any desired radius increase could be implemented, half a metre, a billionth of a metre, 0.7435691032 of a Metre.

But this is not true. Only quantified orbits are allowed. This can be observed at the very little level. The math which proves and reflects the observations, when scaled up to the very big (the earth) still produces only quantified orbits. But the large variables of scale produce quantified orbits that are so close together as to reflect 'analog' properties for orbital values rather the 'digital'. And hence classical math tumbles.
So, that's kind of what I was getting at if I understand you. You are saying spacetime is not a continuum, right?

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:37 am

[quote=""Grendel""]
subsymbolic;677933 wrote:
How about an argument to support your position?
Science shows that our ideas of composite entities are bunk. Philosophers must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

That's a statement, not an argument. The proof (which I presume is what you mean by argument) is given by particle physics. In particular, the chapter in the book, (there is a link above) 'In defence of Science' gives a very good philosophical introduction to this statement.

Much better than I can articulate. That's my argument.[/QUOTE]

So science, a composite entity, shows that our, a composite entity, ideas, a composite entity, are bunk?

Given your history of posting stuff that signally fails to support your position, just lazily referring to some book you read and linked to somewhere isn't remotely an argument., It's just lazy trolling.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:41 am

[quote=""Grendel""]
plebian;677962 wrote: To do away with philosophy would be to hand over the power to make rules to the best propagandist..
You don't think, upon reflection, that this is somewhat of an unreasonable view? When you challenge any person who holds spiritual or religious beliefs on their beliefs this is the standard knee jerk response.

A fear of anarchy, a fear of change. You must know how shallow it sounds when used by them. You have just said earlier that you would welcome a meta-physics tethered to reality, but you fear it cannot happen. Now you know the obstacles it faces, fear of change, loss of lifetime investment. When the paradigm changes it affects everybody with an interested stake. Anxiety over change shouldn't overpower the reality.[/QUOTE]

What's a paradigm? Because outside of a very specific meaning in philosophy of science it's just a word in bullshit bingo. You want to use the term please demonstrate you know what it means. Because otherwise...

House.

User avatar
DrZoidberg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am

Post by DrZoidberg » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:16 am

[quote=""Iolo""]It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.[/quote]

"Philosophers ask questions like children and answer like lawyers".
/Alfred Whitehead

I can formulate your same statement more succinctly.

It seems to me that most philosophers are failed. Philosophy is hard. Most philosophers spend their lives trying to understand the great minds who came before them. And failing to come up with any ideas of their own. But that is fine. The truly genius eureka moments in the entire history of philosophy don't even number a hundred.

But if philosophers wouldn't put that work in, they wouldn't have gotten the eureka moment. Great insight follows hard work. Even for a genius. It's ok that most philosophers fail. It's still a worthwhile endeavour IMHO

I'd argue that the meaning of words are important. I work in IT. The meaning of the words in the requirement document better be the most accurate words you can find or you're not going to get what you want. This is fundamentally philosophy.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:29 am

[quote=""plebian""]
So, that's kind of what I was getting at if I understand you. You are saying spacetime is not a continuum, right?[/quote]

ummmmm ... no. I don't think so?

Spacetime is an asymmetry. In fact it is the-asymmetry. But this asymmetry only came into existence during 'the big bang'. We confuse dimensions and entities all the time. All dimensions are measurements. Spacetime is a measurement. It measures mass.

The Universe before the big bang was in a state of symmetry. That is, a single field.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:32 am

[quote=""subsymbolic""]

What's a paradigm? Because outside of a very specific meaning in philosophy of science it's just a word in bullshit bingo. You want to use the term please demonstrate you know what it means. Because otherwise...

House.[/quote]

I used that word in it's bullshit bingo interpretation.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:39 am

[quote=""subsymbolic""]

So science, a composite entity, shows that our, a composite entity, ideas, a composite entity, are bunk?
.[/quote]

Basically, yes. Your ideas on composite are clearly different to mine. But even using your definition a composite entity is not incapable of understanding it's component parts.

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:02 am

[quote=""Grendel""]
plebian;677968 wrote: So, that's kind of what I was getting at if I understand you. You are saying spacetime is not a continuum, right?
ummmmm ... no. I don't think so?

Spacetime is an asymmetry. In fact it is the-asymmetry. But this asymmetry only came into existence during 'the big bang'. We confuse dimensions and entities all the time. All dimensions are measurements. Spacetime is a measurement. It measures mass.

The Universe before the big bang was in a state of symmetry. That is, a single field.[/QUOTE]

You know, I am sympathetic to someone saying that they'd like a simpler philosophy with less of the fringe publish or perish paradigm stuff that universities put out that both makes no sense due to glaring inconsistencies with observation and has no practical utility at all. I really am sympathetic to that. If you are the type to take your information Very Seriously, the products of university departments in any subject really must be cause for substantial depression. But when you then start telling me what spacetime is, and follow it up by stating matter-of-factly what state the universe was in prior to the big bang, I find myself having a hard time squaring what you want with what you think that looks like.

First, Spacetime is an element of a model. It is not "an asymetry". Dimensions are not measurements. They are also elements of models. Continua in this case. Spacetime is described using geometry. It requires measurement in order to use either GR as a predictive model or even just to calculate a Minkowski light cone sort of thing. Second, if you are taking a third person view of the universe to say something about it, especially something about it that we can only infer and can never even hope to test, you might want to consider the philosophical errors you would be importing. For that though, you'd need to do a bit of the precision language stuff mentioned earlier in the thread, distasteful though it may be.

ETA: your willingness to assign concrete denotation to model abstractions is exactly why I asked about map territory errors earlier. That is the mack-daddy of map-territory errors you just made right there.
Last edited by plebian on Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: fixt

Post Reply