Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

· Something else than what humans can imagine has been happening around humans up to now since the beginning of humans, regardless the fact that most humans don’t get that…
· or else before humans, what does it seem to you was happening in reality?..
Something that happened before humans, but that Humans imaginEd afteR they startEd GETting REAL?!.

Again, what the hell are you talking about? That's gibberish.

 

[AlexPontik]

Reality is something else than what you imagine, because reality you don't imagine...it REALLY is happening.

What you imagine however, has to meet reality up to where it is good enough for you.

Otherwise reality can't help you imagine that reality isn't what you imagine...and then you don't understand.

Sure...how can I help you then?

hmm...perhaps this helps, but not sure.
what you write here in this forum, you really do write, whether what you write you imagined, or it really is happening, that is something else than anything you can imagine to find out.
Why? Because reality is something else than what you imagine, you only find for the specific occasion and time what you have to do, before that you have an idea...but...

you don't REALLY know...

 

[Belz...]

Reality is something else than what you imagine, because reality you don't imagine...it REALLY is happening.

Fortunately we have instruments that allow us to collectively confirm that we all live in the same reality, to determine how it works and to use that determination collectively. So really the difference between the two is trivial.

Otherwise reality can't help you imagine that reality isn't what you imagine...and then you don't understand.

You can't imagine anything you haven't experienced one way or another. It's not like you're creating your own reality out of the blue.

you don't REALLY know...

Sure I do.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again, I repeat.

Yeah everytime I get read the "Oh you're just a philosophobe!" routine I remember that literally every philosophy discussion on this board, literally every one, degrades into this kind of pure nuttery, and then I don't feel so bad.

 

[abaddon]

But we don't know what 'reality' is, we only know what science has revealed so far.

100 years ago we thought we had a handle on 'reality'. But a few niggling wrinkles remained, and when we tried to smooth them out we discovered a whole new 'reality' that we hadn't imagined before. But there are still a few wrinkles. In a few thousand years (assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves) scientists may look back at what we know now and laugh at how ignorant we were.

If science deals only with 'facts', how do we deal with subjects that currently have no 'factual' answer? Atoms were first postulated by ancient Greek and Indian philosophers. They had no evidence for them, and no way to prove whether they were right or not. The argument for atoms was based on philosophy, not science. But that concept helped scientists to find real atoms and the subatomic particles they are made of.

Today science tells us that there are a certain number of particles making up atoms, and that is all. There are no 'hidden variables' or a finer structure that we can perceive. But still a few wrinkles remain. What does this suggest? That our understanding of 'reality' may not just be incomplete, but is only barely scratching the surface. That is not a scientific argument, it is philosophy. We have no evidence for it, just as we had no evidence for atoms until the 1800's.

99% of philosophy may be 'bunk', but that doesn't mean it has no value. You may think that science is so advanced now that there is no room for philosophy. But you would be wrong. 99% of 'science' today is directed at solving the practical problems we are facing. Questions like 'does anything exist' or 'are we all living in a simulation' may seem silly, but they can goad science into exploring stuff that would otherwise be ignored.

Science has a tendency to suffer from the 'Streetlight effect'.

Philosophy might be stumbling around in the dark, but sometimes that's where you find things. Philosophy can't tell you what's there, but it can tell you what might be there and could be worth shining a light on.

Ah. I can understand your irritation. I had the very same and I understand your irritated bucket of rage.

I had that many years ago and it annoyed seven shades out of me. Then I learned that if they can claim any ole bucket of crap then I can claim whatever bucket of crap i feel like claiming. And pay attention. The claim will be different tomorrow. Somehow, you or me or someone else is supposed to have some responsibility to account for such abject crap.Because god, or something.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If science deals only with 'facts', how do we deal with subjects that currently have no 'factual' answer?

How does "philosophy?" The level at which this is not being answered has reached either comical or outright dishonest stages at this point.

It's the same dumb-ass rationalization. "Well if science can't do it, then you can just make up any nonsense."

It's classic anti-intellectual argument of the gaps.

 

[Belz...]

How does "philosophy?" The level at which this is not being answered has reached either comical or outright dishonest.

I guess making up the answer, much like with religion, is better than a tentative, rigorous one.

 

[Lithrael]

Philosophy is a mixed bag but nobody should be dissed for not being into it unless they are like, actively trying to comment on a specific jargoney bit of it without being interested enough to get slightly familiar with what the point was supposed to be. You know, the philosophical equivalent of going ‘why doesn’t doctor who just go back in time if anything goes wrong’

TBH I only go into R&P when I feel like getting some good navel-gazing between my toes.

 

[IanS]

Well, like said, a logical axiom, a mathematic formula, the concept of absolutist monarchy in the 17th century Europe, the habeas corpus principle in common law. Are those material things?

No, they are clearly not material things. And I don't know why you even need to ask about that.

You could argue about what a "material" thing is. And philosophers will apparently do that indefinitely! But what we mean by a "material" object, or a "material" or tangible "real event", is something that takes place outside of mere thoughts and ideas in your brain ... something that happens outside of us, in the universe, that we can measure as producing data about it's size, strength, direction etc.

 

[IanS]

Is the weak nuclear force a material thing?

Yes or no.

Hmm, a good question: as a concept, a rule, it's obviously immaterial, but it can be reduced to matter pretty straightforwardly. Is the concept of absolute monarchy in the 17th century Europe a material thing?

Yes or no.

Yes, of course the weak nuclear force is a "material" thing ... it's something that happens in the universe, which we believe is a real place! with real objects and real events (which typically involve force changes) ... it is not merely a thought or idea in an animal mind.

The force fields which compose of all of space (and actually all of everything else), and the different specific vibrational patterns which we think of as subatomic particles, are all "material" things, in the sense of them being real and independent of mere human thought or ideas or beliefs etc.

 

[IanS]

If science deals only with 'facts', how do we deal with subjects that currently have no 'factual' answer? Atoms were first postulated by ancient Greek and Indian philosophers. They had no evidence for them, and no way to prove whether they were right or not. The argument for atoms was based on philosophy, not science. But that concept helped scientists to find real atoms and the subatomic particles they are made of.

.

This thread has now gone totally off the rails from the philosophy side. They are just showing that they know zero about science and have completely lost contact with reality!

Look, bloody hell, how many times does it need to be explained that there are no actual "facts"!

Science does not deal with "facts". It deals with what appear to be facts, what seem to us to be factual or true or "certain" ... but we can never prove that such things are factual certainties. And we have zero need to do that or claim that anyway ... it's more than enough to simply describe what we detect and to make whatever use we can/want of that.

You are hiding behind your own misunderstood use of words, when you ask "how do we deal with subjects that currently have no 'factual' answer?" ... it's questions like that which show that you have, and other philosophy people here have, no understanding or concept of the world around you or how science has explained that world for you ... you & the other philosophers seem to be completely uncomprehending & mystified about any of it LoL

What do you mean by a "factual answer"??? Our human answers themselves are not "factual" things ... they are not "material" objects or events. They are our human ideas, beliefs, descriptions etc. But science can always produce answers for things, for anything you ever detect or think of or anything else ... we can always very easily produce a scientific "answer" ...

... you may not like the "answers" ... you may think they are not good enough or whatever, but it's never difficult to find an "answer".

There's no mystery here. You are apparently mystifying yourself and trying to pass that confusion and lack of understanding around amongst your fellow philosophy believers ... but it looks as if this all now showing the true nature of how absurd and uncomprehending philosophy people are in threads like this.

 

[The Common Potato]

has now gone totally off the rails

Did philosophers consider this when they devised the trolley problem?

 

[Belz...]

This thread has now gone totally off the rails from the philosophy side. They are just showing that they know zero about science and have completely lost contact with reality!

Look, bloody hell, how many times does it need to be explained that there are no actual "facts"!

I think there are facts, and you don't need metaphysical certainty in order to call them that. But as always we have to deal with the philosophiles' predilection for playing with words, so we end up doing it too.

 

[The Man]

Got a bit more time now, a cigar and a drink, but not much of the former.

I answered your point. You talked about "dialetheia". I responded that anyone can create a sentence that is nonsensical or contradictory, but my question wasn't about that, so your posting that made little sense.

No you didn't answer my point. Again My point was that it is a philosophical question and the philosophy that questions it is called dialetheism.

Find me any philosophy, theory or idea that presupposes the opposite. You won't, because that logical reality is so fundamental and self-evident that nobody has ever argued that it can possibly be wrong. So, in fact the answer to my first question is NO, because there cannot be a rational discussion about whether that presumption is false.

I found for you it, gave it to you and explained in more detail as to how it was the answer to your question. What, like the third of fifth time, dialetheism.

See my point about honesty? That's not what I said at all. You are lying.

You have now above, asked for "philosophy, theory or idea that presupposes the opposite". Which I have given to you repletely. The lack of honesty remains simply yours. Evidently because you didn't expect an honest answer to your question. Heck, I've been reading this thread from the start and had decided to not get involved. Again, because, like you, I'm not a philosophical person. However, you happened to ask a question that I could answer because of my interactions on another thread, as I explained.

I said I would wait for you to work out the contradiction. I've explained it a bit above. If it's an axiom, one universal, then it's not a topic of discussion, philosophical or otherwise, and no philosophy could ever presume otherwise. That's why I said earlier that logic is far more fundamental than philosophy, but none of you wanted to hear it.

You said you would wait for me to figure out where you thought was a contradiction. How the heck can I figure out your thinking unless you tell it to me? Your wait could have been quite long. Axioms are only preposition held as true, specifically because they can't be proven or refuted within the systems they govern.

Now, you're talking about "universal" axioms, I'll address this in to next response to the only other post I read before responding to yours.

 

[Belz...]

No you didn't answer my point. Again My point was that it is a philosophical question and the philosophy that questions it is called dialetheism.

You're simply not understanding my point, despite me repeating and clarifying it over and over.

The point is that I've been told multiple times in this thread that logic is a discipline of philosophy. What I've responded to that is that the workings of boolean algebra cannot work any other way than they work now, so they must be true regardless of what one thinks or says about them. So while you can certainly "study" logic, the fact that X and ~X cannot be both true at the same time is axiomatic to philosophy, which kind of makes its study by philosophers pointless.

I found for you it, gave it to you and explained in more detail as to how it was the answer to your question. What, like the third of fifth time, dialetheism.

Dialetheism claims that logical contradictions are possible? I would love to see a demonstration of this.

You said you would wait for me to figure out where you thought there was a contradiction.

You can't rephrase what I said and claim I said it. The post is there for all to see, and I've explained the contradiction. Something cannot be an axiom of philosophy and also a subset or result of it.

 

[The Man]

Okay so what are those bedrocks? Proto-philosophy?

No "Proto" to it other than what I said. The axioms and such are suppose to come from First Principles^WP. The intention being, that there is nothing under that but solid ground. Various philosopher's mileage, will of course vary.

Isn't our jaws dropping at the wisdom of the Old Wise Men on the mountain the whole reaction we're supposed to be having?

If philosophy isn't blowing my mind and isn't doing anything practical what's the point?

Blown minds, I'd equate to blown fuses (to given an electrical analogy). If your intent is to blow someone else's mind then you're just trying to shove too much information down a conduit that can't currently (pun intended) handle it. If perchance you get your mind blown by some philosophical revelation, then you just need bigger mental fuses (or not care like me). I'd say, in my purely un-philosophic opinion, that a blown mind is simply an epiphany to something they didn't know before but feel they should have.

WHAT'S THE POINT?

WHAT... IS... THE... POINT?

Essentially, structured thinking. Now you get to decide what that structure is but once you do, you have to abide by its constraints and implications. Hey, I get it, because philosophy is based on first principles it is easy to think of it as the root of all thought, but that lacks the structure from those first principles that actual philosophy requires.

I'll give you another example from the thread that got me to (quite briefly) dialetheism. A=A ,a tautology you spoke of before. You might not think you have to say it, but it was one of the Peano axioms^WP of mathematics. Though it's not included in modern treatments. The thing was that the originator of that thread felt that not all 5's equaled each other. It depended on how you calculated them. A summation of five integers of 1 would give you the integer of, well, 5. However, a summation of an infinite convergent series, that was convergent on the integer of 5. Would somehow retain some ineffable but immutable aspect of infinity, that he just couldn't define. Even though the convergent series was defined to sum to that integer of 5.

Again what philosophy "isn't" changes as much as what it is. I'm looking for a consistent answer here and not getting anything resembling one.

"Philosophy" is whatever everyone needs to win whatever part of the argument they are in at the moment they are making it.

Willy nilly and inconsistent thinking (that is, inconsistent with the First Principles, axioms and definitions you have previously laid out) isn't philosophizing, in my opinion, just fantasizing. So, I would certainly not agree with the preposition that all thinking is philosophizing. Its the structuralized (though you have to explicitly define the structure) thinking that made philosophy the bedrock you mentioned before. That we now don't really notice, even if we do happen to use it.

 

[IanS]

Oh, I think there are facts too. I think alsmot everything is factual. But afaik it's not possible to actually prove that in the sense of 100% certainty that could never be wrong.

I don't think we should have any real doubt that we do of course exist, that the Moon, Sun, Stars etc. do all exist. But if we cannot actually prove such things, then it's better to avoid calling them “facts”. Because there is no need to be claiming that we have facts and proofs etc. We just deal with whatever appears to exist.

I was just commenting on Roger-R saying that science deals with facts, and saying that science can't deal with countless other things that have “no factual answers” (I think that's what he was saying). The point is that science, or most theoretical physicists at at least, have learned not to claim that “science deals with facts” in then sense of science claiming it has proved things to be facts (ie completely unarguable certainty). Since QM, science has learned to be much more careful about that … especially since we don't need to make any such claims at all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again the whole stupid facts/truth distinction doesn't exist and is just a philosophy trick to invent questions that only it can answer.

Nothing is ever 100% certain if you define "certainty" a specific way.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, I think there are facts too. I think alsmot everything is factual. But afaik it's not possible to actually prove that in the sense of 100% certainty that could never be wrong.

I think we're on the same page. But don't give the philosophiles an inch: a fact has never been defined as something with 100% metaphysical certainty, and they will use that uncertainty as if it's some sort of flaw.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think we're on the same page. But don't give the philosophiles an inch: a fact has never been defined as something with 100% metaphysical certainty, and they will use that uncertainty as if it's some sort of flaw.

And they will act like "philosophy" can answer these questions to some level of certainty that science cannot yet, yet fail (or more likely never get around to even trying) to show how how exactly.