Lee Corbin writes:
It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak up for
realism? The *default* belief among *all* people up until
they take their first fatal dive into a philosophy book
is that there is an ordinary three-dimensional world that
we are all running around in.
(Yes---one
Colin writes
Hi Lee, Beat around the 'bush', why don't you!
You're right. I must be more direct. Okay, here it is:
Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers.
Academically, it has become an almost completely worthless
cult. (I am *not* exaggerating one bit.)
'Reality',
Stathis writes
When 99% of the human race use the word reality, they mean
the world outside their skins.
If you sacrifice our common understanding of reality, then
you'll find yourself in a hole out of which you'll never climb.
Yes, but what *is* this 3D world we can all stub our toe
Hi Stephen,
I merely wish to comprehend the ideas of those that take a Pythagorean
approach to mathematics; e.g. that Mathematics is more real than the
physical world - All is number.
One thing that I have learned in my study of philosophy is that no
single finite model of reality can be
Le 23-juil.-05, à 08:14, Hal Finney a écrit :
My current view is a little different, which is that all of the
equations
fly. Each one does come to life but each is in its own universe,
so we can't see the result. But they are all just as real as our own.
In fact one of the equations might
Le 26-juil.-05, à 02:17, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
Le 26-juil.-05, à 03:12, Lee Corbin a écrit :
We all admit that it's easy to become confused. I myself
regularly do so every day. In fact, you can't even learn
anything until you first become confused.
I agree.
But there is *no* reason to become more confused than is
necessary.
Sure.
Le 26-juil.-05, à 04:06, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Well, all that I ask is that the *basics* be kept firmly in mind
while we gingerly probe forward.
The basics (basic epistemology, that is) include
1. the map is not the territory, and perception is not reality
This is ambiguous. A trivial
Bruno writes
Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
agree---this is *very* simple
I think a reconciliation between Bruno and Lee's arguments can be the following:
Our perception of reality is limited by the structure and composition
of brains. (we can 'enhance' these to be able to perceive and
understand 'more', but at ANY point of time the above limitation
holds). I think
Dear Aditya,
I find your attempt to reconcile the arguments to be very good! I most
appresiate that you point out that our notion of Realism must include both
the invariants with respect to point of view and an allowance for novelity.
I do agree that we could use a FAQ defining the
[col]
I aologise in advance for my crap spelling. My fingers don;t type what I think.
That's the relaity of it! :-) Warning... I am also adopting Lee-style bombast
because I feel like venting. Don't be too precious about it! :-)
[Lee]
You're right. I must be more direct. Okay, here it is:
12 matches
Mail list logo
