Our science expresses our changing viewpoint and our technology validates it. Our relationship to that technology is the stuff of philosophy. Where will we be if the LHC allow us to beam over for a chat at Neil's pub tomorrow?
On Jan 5, 10:21 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The chemist were the first to start changing matter (Otto Hahn), if > one excludes "nature". The debate now in physics is whether there is > non-matter matter (non-particles), which is odd in some ways as matter > is not part of relativity at core, but keeps cropping up as useful in > describing chunks of stuff. Consensus is that we are more in the dark > than we know. I note that if I use internet explorer to get here the > spell check disappears and yet is present under google's superior > chrome. How might the non-particles (a possibility for LHC > experiments) create our worlds of matter given our lack of all but > scant knowledge in imagination in our subjectivities of such? Wine is > not the same when one's wine buds are skewed. > > On 5 Jan, 13:07, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Are you saying that changing matter into energy has not concerned the > > practitioners of the philosophy of science? > > If, so why are you saying that? > > > On Jan 5, 1:25 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Overall, while there does exist the philosophy of science, the term > > > philosophy is a very large tent. And, so far, what I understand of it > > > has little to do with changing matter. Now, physics and other > > > sciences, perhaps. > > > > On Jan 4, 1:26 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 9:08 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In the context of "All Things" in the Universe, perhaps. However, > > > > > concerning the atomic bomb, humans are Beings and the atomic bomb is a > > > > > Thing. I'm sure Thoreau was not alluding to inanimate objects or > > > > > monstrous creations of human ingenuity but more so to the natural > > > > > order of ecological life and the impact of a changing environment. > > > > > I know, I was just playing with words. > > > > The particular reason I mentioned the atom was because generally when > > > > change occurs it is usually a fact that matter rearranges, in a > > > > nuclear explosion matter changes more fundamentally. > > > > As for Thoreau - I understand that "things" are the eternal verities > > > > like love, hate, jealously etc.. > > > > > > On Jan 4, 1:43 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 5:44 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > People changed to create the atomic bomb. > > > > > > > People are things too > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:30 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The atomic bomb is an example of things changing. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 4:12 pm, Molly Brogan > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Thoreau: "Things don't change, we change." > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 8:44 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 4:36 am, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Without meaning to take an apparently opposing view, I > > > > > > > > > > > would agree > > > > > > > > > > > that philosophy will need to be brought ‘up to date’ > > > > > > > > > > > when/if humans > > > > > > > > > > > learn the true nature of everything and/or how to not die. > > > > > > > > > > > Surely philosophy is the means by which humans continually > > > > > > > > > > re-invent > > > > > > > > > > the nature of (every)things, which is ever changing and > > > > > > > > > > modernising. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 11:49 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well as for literature, Homer may have been the > > > > > > > > > > > > greatest for hundreds > > > > > > > > > > > > of years but he was surpassed. Shakespeare is damn hard > > > > > > > > > > > > to beat and I > > > > > > > > > > > > don't think either Doyle or Dickens have managed to do > > > > > > > > > > > > it. Doyle, in > > > > > > > > > > > > particular is populist by comparison. The point is that > > > > > > > > > > > > Shakey, as a > > > > > > > > > > > > contemporary did do better than Homer as a person of > > > > > > > > > > > > the past, so it > > > > > > > > > > > > is possible that history may well find a new literary > > > > > > > > > > > > genius. > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for philosophy there is a thread of progress (ugh! I > > > > > > > > > > > > hear you say). > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, Plato's time is over and although we may still > > > > > > > > > > > > rely on him for > > > > > > > > > > > > things he was the first to say, most of his work is no > > > > > > > > > > > > longer useful > > > > > > > > > > > > or relevant. None of the philosophers "outclass" > > > > > > > > > > > > contemporary > > > > > > > > > > > > philosophers as they no longer have the power to > > > > > > > > > > > > respond to up to date > > > > > > > > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31 2008, 4:06 am, Archetypal Columnist > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The prolific writers Charles Dickens,Sir Conan > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doyle,Shakespeare and > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatnot is exquisitely intellectual in their > > > > > > > > > > > > > enterprise,which,we,the > > > > > > > > > > > > > contemporary humanity is revering them of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > optimal repertoire. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Confucius,Lao Tzu,Homer,the philosophers,had outclass > > > > > > > > > > > > > us in light of > > > > > > > > > > > > > ethics and morals which we hitherto assimilate them.I > > > > > > > > > > > > > perceive I am > > > > > > > > > > > > > marginally inferior,like having penury and being > > > > > > > > > > > > > destitue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vying with the past is apparently downright > > > > > > > > > > > > > inimitable.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
