Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Three Arguments on Moral Realism

1234568»

Posts

  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I doubt he meant the self is physical in a literal sense. It's just really damn hard to talk about this topic without being very careful.

    Jewcar is a careless soul. :P

    My Dark Souls 2 Diary
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    That's fine. The self is physical. You are reducing it to the atoms. But you can't stop there, because atoms have sub-particles etc. So you are saying that humans are living in a fantasy-world, where they compose a hand from atoms and the hand is just a dream.

    We've known that how we sensually percieve the world is simplistic at least since, what, the Hellenistic Age?

    "Dream" isn't the term I'd use, and "fantasy" is an awkward word in general.

    --

    Also if I have to explain that by sensual I don't mean "gently erotic" or something I'mma pee in your begonias.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    If you want to start on perception, a lot of our senses have attentional limitations and observe the world in a heuristic way.

    It's why illusions work.

    Just calling something a fantasy or dream isn't really an objection, it holds no scorn for me. It kind of makes me feel sad because damn it'd be nice to have certainty again.

    ---

    You is totalling wanting to sex up the universe Icen, I getcha.

    My begonias are safe!

    I don't have any.

    My Dark Souls 2 Diary
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I'd love to be able to sense the world like Doctor Manhattan does.

    --

    Well, I DO want to sex up the universe. :winky:

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Incenj, I get the feeling that you're expecting too much from morality. Morals don't have to be delivered from on high by a transcendent being to be real. They are just the way you ought to live your life. Even saying "I ought to live my life however I want"doesn't negate morality, it just asserts there is one moral principle ("Do what you want.")

  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    You know the thing I don't like about that character.

    He's supposedly omniscient, but when conversing he still has attentional limitations.

    He shouldn't have attentional limitations if he can view that much stuff unless he's supposed to still be human. I thought he wasn't?

    He should be able to sense it all think it all see multiple dimensions and still be able to have a conversation with a person flawlessly. That should be easy.

    My Dark Souls 2 Diary
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Hach: How much of the thread have you read? I'm not against codes of behavior. I'm just against claiming external justification for them when there is no evidence for it unless you're doing so specifically to trick people into their behavior.

    --

    ML: He seems perfectly human to me.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Hach: How much of the thread have you read? I'm not against codes of behavior. I'm just against claiming external justification for them when there is no evidence for it unless you're doing so specifically to trick people into their behavior.

    --

    ML: He seems perfectly human to me.

    I'm against the reaction that there being no external justification means we all run around like monkeys. I find this a silly objection.

    Animals have what we would define as ethics. They have codes of behavior.

    "Don't need no thinky thunk juice to know what's right pardner." *spit*

    ----

    Eh I dislike a lot of super brainy fiction characters nowadays. Stupid education ruining my fantasy literature. :(

    My Dark Souls 2 Diary
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Hach: How much of the thread have you read? I'm not against codes of behavior. I'm just against claiming external justification for them when there is no evidence for it unless you're doing so specifically to trick people into their behavior.

    Right, but what I'm saying is that ethical principles don't need external justification, because reason will reveal that they are simply the best course of action to take. If you have to "trick" some people in acting ethically for the good of society, it is only because you can't rely on most people to reason through their actions, and there also exists a class of people who lack the ability to reason morally at all (i.e. sociopaths).

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I'm against the reaction that there being no external justification means we all run around like monkeys. I find this a silly objection.

    Animals have what we would define as ethics. They have codes of behavior.

    "Don't need no thinky thunk juice to know what's right pardner." *spit*

    I don't like the idea, either. It's just much easier for me to handle someone lying to someone else than to -me-. :P

    --

    Hach: You have to set a goal before you can have a best course to reach it.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    You know the thing I don't like about that character.

    He's supposedly omniscient, but when conversing he still has attentional limitations.

    He shouldn't have attentional limitations if he can view that much stuff unless he's supposed to still be human. I thought he wasn't?

    He should be able to sense it all think it all see multiple dimensions and still be able to have a conversation with a person flawlessly. That should be easy.

    Also it requires you to assume that all quantum indeterminancy averages out and is insignificant on an even moderately macro level. Which is silly.

    Which is why determnism as such can't be true: the universe itself is not actually deterministic.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    You know the thing I don't like about that character.

    He's supposedly omniscient, but when conversing he still has attentional limitations.

    He shouldn't have attentional limitations if he can view that much stuff unless he's supposed to still be human. I thought he wasn't?

    He should be able to sense it all think it all see multiple dimensions and still be able to have a conversation with a person flawlessly. That should be easy.

    Also it requires you to assume that all quantum indeterminancy averages out and is insignificant on an even moderately macro level. Which is silly.

    Which is why determnism as such can't be true: the universe itself is not actually deterministic.

    Not true. The universe could be strictly deterministic, we just can't tell, because we're limited by Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

    Nothing in Quantum Mechanics says that the universe has to be nondeterministic, it just governs how and to what extent we can do calculations at the quantum level.

    sig10008eq.png
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Moridin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    You know the thing I don't like about that character.

    He's supposedly omniscient, but when conversing he still has attentional limitations.

    He shouldn't have attentional limitations if he can view that much stuff unless he's supposed to still be human. I thought he wasn't?

    He should be able to sense it all think it all see multiple dimensions and still be able to have a conversation with a person flawlessly. That should be easy.

    Also it requires you to assume that all quantum indeterminancy averages out and is insignificant on an even moderately macro level. Which is silly.

    Which is why determnism as such can't be true: the universe itself is not actually deterministic.

    Not true. The universe could be strictly deterministic, we just can't tell, because we're limited by Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

    Nothing in Quantum Mechanics says that the universe has to be nondeterministic, it just governs how and to what extent we can do calculations at the quantum level.

    It totally is true. There are any number of phenomenon such as sponatanious emision, vacuum fluctuations, and radioactive decay which are inherently indeterministic. They cannot be predicted ahead of time, and do not have a classical antecedent cause.

    More to the point, you are incorrect about the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself. It's not just that you can't measure both momentum and position, but rather that the particle itself does no have definite momentum and position.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Moridin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    You know the thing I don't like about that character.

    He's supposedly omniscient, but when conversing he still has attentional limitations.

    He shouldn't have attentional limitations if he can view that much stuff unless he's supposed to still be human. I thought he wasn't?

    He should be able to sense it all think it all see multiple dimensions and still be able to have a conversation with a person flawlessly. That should be easy.

    Also it requires you to assume that all quantum indeterminancy averages out and is insignificant on an even moderately macro level. Which is silly.

    Which is why determnism as such can't be true: the universe itself is not actually deterministic.

    Not true. The universe could be strictly deterministic, we just can't tell, because we're limited by Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

    Nothing in Quantum Mechanics says that the universe has to be nondeterministic, it just governs how and to what extent we can do calculations at the quantum level.

    It totally is true. There are any number of phenomenon such as sponatanious emision, vacuum fluctuations, and radioactive decay which are inherently indeterministic. They cannot be predicted ahead of time, and do not have a classical antecedent cause.

    More to the point, you are incorrect about the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself. It's not just that you can't measure both momentum and position, but rather that the particle itself does no have definite momentum and position.

    Interpretations of quantum mechanics have been hotly debated for the better part of a century. I'm inclined to believe the above, but since we're talking philosophy you have to be very careful and shouldn't take it for granted. Besides, I don't anyone wants to turn this into a discussion about philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics.

    ragesig.jpg

  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Moridin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    You know the thing I don't like about that character.

    He's supposedly omniscient, but when conversing he still has attentional limitations.

    He shouldn't have attentional limitations if he can view that much stuff unless he's supposed to still be human. I thought he wasn't?

    He should be able to sense it all think it all see multiple dimensions and still be able to have a conversation with a person flawlessly. That should be easy.

    Also it requires you to assume that all quantum indeterminancy averages out and is insignificant on an even moderately macro level. Which is silly.

    Which is why determnism as such can't be true: the universe itself is not actually deterministic.

    Not true. The universe could be strictly deterministic, we just can't tell, because we're limited by Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

    Nothing in Quantum Mechanics says that the universe has to be nondeterministic, it just governs how and to what extent we can do calculations at the quantum level.

    It totally is true. There are any number of phenomenon such as sponatanious emision, vacuum fluctuations, and radioactive decay which are inherently indeterministic. They cannot be predicted ahead of time, and do not have a classical antecedent cause.

    More to the point, you are incorrect about the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself. It's not just that you can't measure both momentum and position, but rather that the particle itself does no have definite momentum and position.

    You missed my point. They are nondeterministic as far as we can tell, yes. That doesn't mean the mechanism behind them at the most fundamental level is not deterministic. It also doesn't mean the mechanism behind them at the most fundeamental level is not nondeterministic.

    My point is we don't know enough about physics to make that kind of claim. I know exactly what Heisenburg's uncertainty principle means ;-) When I say we're limited by it, I mean we're fundamentally limited by it, not that it's just some barrier we can overcome.

    sig10008eq.png
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Everything I've ever read or heard about quantum mechanics has explicitly said,

    "The randomness experienced in quantum mechanics is not simply because we can't find the cause. We specifically observe there is no cause. The world as this level is just random. Period."

  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Everything I've ever read or heard about quantum mechanics has explicitly said,

    "The randomness experienced in quantum mechanics is not simply because we can't find the cause. We specifically observe there is no cause. The world as this level is just random. Period."

    That statement is a mix of a copout and an actual scientific reason.

    The "random" behavior is because of the wave-like nature of particles. It's a pet peeve of mine when people talk about wave-like versus particle-like because, fundamentally, the objects in question are not waves and are not particles. They're warticles, or paves, or something else entirely. You can't adequately explain them with either term.

    And this could very quickly become a debate about the interpretations of quantum mechanics, like mentioned above.

    My point is simply that quantum mechanics doesn't adequately explain all of reality, so you shouldn't use it as the primer for whether or not the universe is deterministic or nondeterministic.

    sig10008eq.png
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Moridin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Moridin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    You know the thing I don't like about that character.

    He's supposedly omniscient, but when conversing he still has attentional limitations.

    He shouldn't have attentional limitations if he can view that much stuff unless he's supposed to still be human. I thought he wasn't?

    He should be able to sense it all think it all see multiple dimensions and still be able to have a conversation with a person flawlessly. That should be easy.

    Also it requires you to assume that all quantum indeterminancy averages out and is insignificant on an even moderately macro level. Which is silly.

    Which is why determnism as such can't be true: the universe itself is not actually deterministic.

    Not true. The universe could be strictly deterministic, we just can't tell, because we're limited by Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

    Nothing in Quantum Mechanics says that the universe has to be nondeterministic, it just governs how and to what extent we can do calculations at the quantum level.

    It totally is true. There are any number of phenomenon such as sponatanious emision, vacuum fluctuations, and radioactive decay which are inherently indeterministic. They cannot be predicted ahead of time, and do not have a classical antecedent cause.

    More to the point, you are incorrect about the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself. It's not just that you can't measure both momentum and position, but rather that the particle itself does no have definite momentum and position.

    You missed my point. They are nondeterministic as far as we can tell, yes. That doesn't mean the mechanism behind them at the most fundamental level is not deterministic. It also doesn't mean the mechanism behind them at the most fundeamental level is not nondeterministic.

    My point is we don't know enough about physics to make that kind of claim. I know exactly what Heisenburg's uncertainty principle means ;-) When I say we're limited by it, I mean we're fundamentally limited by it, not that it's just some barrier we can overcome.

    Which of the following is the simpler explanation:

    Reality is indeterministic.
    Reality appears to be indeterministic but actually has deterministic hidden variables that just pretend to be indeterministic.

    Between equally descriptive theories, the simpler is always epistemically preferable.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Moridin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Moridin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    You know the thing I don't like about that character.

    He's supposedly omniscient, but when conversing he still has attentional limitations.

    He shouldn't have attentional limitations if he can view that much stuff unless he's supposed to still be human. I thought he wasn't?

    He should be able to sense it all think it all see multiple dimensions and still be able to have a conversation with a person flawlessly. That should be easy.

    Also it requires you to assume that all quantum indeterminancy averages out and is insignificant on an even moderately macro level. Which is silly.

    Which is why determnism as such can't be true: the universe itself is not actually deterministic.

    Not true. The universe could be strictly deterministic, we just can't tell, because we're limited by Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

    Nothing in Quantum Mechanics says that the universe has to be nondeterministic, it just governs how and to what extent we can do calculations at the quantum level.

    It totally is true. There are any number of phenomenon such as sponatanious emision, vacuum fluctuations, and radioactive decay which are inherently indeterministic. They cannot be predicted ahead of time, and do not have a classical antecedent cause.

    More to the point, you are incorrect about the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself. It's not just that you can't measure both momentum and position, but rather that the particle itself does no have definite momentum and position.

    You missed my point. They are nondeterministic as far as we can tell, yes. That doesn't mean the mechanism behind them at the most fundamental level is not deterministic. It also doesn't mean the mechanism behind them at the most fundeamental level is not nondeterministic.

    My point is we don't know enough about physics to make that kind of claim. I know exactly what Heisenburg's uncertainty principle means ;-) When I say we're limited by it, I mean we're fundamentally limited by it, not that it's just some barrier we can overcome.

    Which of the following is the simpler explanation:

    Reality is indeterministic.
    Reality appears to be indeterministic but actually has deterministic hidden variables that just pretend to be indeterministic.

    Between equally descriptive theories, the simpler is always epistemically preferable.

    Considering we don't have a grand unifying theory, nor do we have an adequate description of interactions beyond the quark level, and considering it wasn't that long ago that we thought everything was balls bouncing around in a strictly deterministic way, I don't see a problem in reserving judgment for these things.

    And some string theorists I know would like to have a word with you ;-)

    sig10008eq.png
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User
    edited December 2008
    If only string theory weren't such terrible bullshit.

    I see the plan to take this thread back on topic has succeeded brilliantly.

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Moridin wrote: »

    Considering we don't have a grand unifying theory, nor do we have an adequate description of interactions beyond the quark level, and considering it wasn't that long ago that we thought everything was balls bouncing around in a strictly deterministic way, I don't see a problem in reserving judgment for these things.

    And some string theorists I know would like to have a word with you ;-)

    Seems fair as long as you are willing to reserve judgement on the whole question of determinism/indeterminism. Not so fair if you're going to defend one over the other.

    Of course reserving judgement doesn't lead to any real progression beyond "I might be right!"

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Which of the following is the simpler explanation:

    Reality is indeterministic.
    Reality appears to be indeterministic but actually has deterministic hidden variables that just pretend to be indeterministic.

    Between equally descriptive theories, the simpler is always epistemically preferable.
    At a fundamental level, reality is indeterministic.

    At a statistical level, reality is quite deterministic. Quantum "randomness" averages out in the long term to stunning levels of predictability, so much that it's just splitting semantic hairs to say it's "random."

    Similarly, evolution is "random" on the fundamental level of genetic drift (whether by mutation or other mechanisms). But the statistical, long-term consequences of evolution are not random at all. They are funneled into discernable, predictable patterns—in other words, determined—by natural selection.

    Edit: how the fuck did you people get on quantum mechanics?

  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    Edit: how the fuck did you people get on quantum mechanics?

    Saturday afternoon. A philosophy thread. Several philosophy-inclined forum posters online at the same time. We might not have been able to determine that it'd end up at quantum mechanics, but it was guaranteed to end up somewhere weird.

  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I actually just wrote a paper on how Descartes was the first string theorist. If he is then the cogito makes total sense.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    I actually just wrote a paper on how Descartes was the first string theorist. If he is then the cogito makes total sense.

    I can't even tell if you're joking.

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    I actually just wrote a paper on how Descartes was the first string theorist. If he is then the cogito makes total sense.

    I can't even tell if you're joking.

    Nope. If you really study Descartes mechanics, it is necessary because everything is divisible to humanity, and only God sustains the smallest part. Also, because of the extended nature of bodies, they are impenetrable, and the movement of the world is a before/after cause and effect determination of the physical bodies constantly colliding. Also, there are no voids for Descartes, so the world is filled with extension, which the human mind differentiates. He also has no theory of forces in the mechanical world -- that was one of Leibniz's biggest critiques.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    I actually just wrote a paper on how Descartes was the first string theorist. If he is then the cogito makes total sense.

    I can't even tell if you're joking.

    Nope. If you really study Descartes mechanics, it is necessary because everything is divisible to humanity, and only God sustains the smallest part. Also, because of the extended nature of bodies, they are impenetrable, and the movement of the world is a before/after cause and effect determination of the physical bodies constantly colliding. Also, there are no voids for Descartes, so the world is filled with extension, which the human mind differentiates. He also has no theory of forces in the mechanical world -- that was one of Leibniz's biggest critiques.

    I do not know what bizarre conception of string theory you have, but I hope for your sake that your professor is equally ignorant on the subject.

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    zakkiel wrote: »
    I do not know what bizarre conception of string theory you have, but I hope for your sake that your professor is equally ignorant on the subject.

    Luckily for Podly, there is an excellent chance of this. See: the Sokal Affair.

  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    I actually just wrote a paper on how Descartes was the first string theorist. If he is then the cogito makes total sense.

    I can't even tell if you're joking.

    Nope. If you really study Descartes mechanics, it is necessary because everything is divisible to humanity, and only God sustains the smallest part. Also, because of the extended nature of bodies, they are impenetrable, and the movement of the world is a before/after cause and effect determination of the physical bodies constantly colliding. Also, there are no voids for Descartes, so the world is filled with extension, which the human mind differentiates. He also has no theory of forces in the mechanical world -- that was one of Leibniz's biggest critiques.

    I do not know what bizarre conception of string theory you have, but I hope for your sake that your professor is equally ignorant on the subject.

    Well given your proven ignorance of Descartes, I'm not quite sure if you're one to talk.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    I actually just wrote a paper on how Descartes was the first string theorist. If he is then the cogito makes total sense.

    I can't even tell if you're joking.

    Nope. If you really study Descartes mechanics, it is necessary because everything is divisible to humanity, and only God sustains the smallest part. Also, because of the extended nature of bodies, they are impenetrable, and the movement of the world is a before/after cause and effect determination of the physical bodies constantly colliding. Also, there are no voids for Descartes, so the world is filled with extension, which the human mind differentiates. He also has no theory of forces in the mechanical world -- that was one of Leibniz's biggest critiques.

    I do not know what bizarre conception of string theory you have, but I hope for your sake that your professor is equally ignorant on the subject.

    Well given your proven ignorance of Descartes, I'm not quite sure if you're one to talk.

    Regardless, there's a reason most schools make you go through all of the classical mechanics, then all of quantum mechanics, then more of quantum again in grad school, and probably the equivalent of a bachelors in mathematics of algebraic topology courses before they even think about letting you in on String Theory.

    Point being: if you think you have a good idea of what string theory is without an incredibly strong physics basis, you probably have no idea what you're talking about.

    sig10008eq.png
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Moridin wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    I actually just wrote a paper on how Descartes was the first string theorist. If he is then the cogito makes total sense.

    I can't even tell if you're joking.

    Nope. If you really study Descartes mechanics, it is necessary because everything is divisible to humanity, and only God sustains the smallest part. Also, because of the extended nature of bodies, they are impenetrable, and the movement of the world is a before/after cause and effect determination of the physical bodies constantly colliding. Also, there are no voids for Descartes, so the world is filled with extension, which the human mind differentiates. He also has no theory of forces in the mechanical world -- that was one of Leibniz's biggest critiques.

    I do not know what bizarre conception of string theory you have, but I hope for your sake that your professor is equally ignorant on the subject.

    Well given your proven ignorance of Descartes, I'm not quite sure if you're one to talk.

    Regardless, there's a reason most schools make you go through all of the classical mechanics, then all of quantum mechanics, then more of quantum again in grad school before they even think about letting you in on String Theory courses.

    Point being: if you think you have a good idea of what string theory is without an incredibly strong physics basis, you probably have no idea what you're talking about.

    For Descartes, the physical world is the world of mathematics that is completely subject to mechanics, so I don't think I'm making some sort of preposterous claim.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    For Descartes, the physical world is the world of mathematics that is completely subject to mechanics, so I don't think I'm making some sort of preposterous claim.

    So did the pythagoreans. Doesn't make it String Theory ;-)

    sig10008eq.png
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Moridin wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    For Descartes, the physical world is the world of mathematics that is completely subject to mechanics, so I don't think I'm making some sort of preposterous claim.

    So did the pythagoreans. Doesn't make it String Theory ;-)

    While I know it's tongue and cheek, Pythagoras also had his theories of the dyad and the monad, the indivisible whole. Descartes had no such thing.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    Moridin wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    For Descartes, the physical world is the world of mathematics that is completely subject to mechanics, so I don't think I'm making some sort of preposterous claim.

    So did the pythagoreans. Doesn't make it String Theory ;-)

    While I know it's tongue and cheek, Pythagoras also had his theories of the dyad and the monad, the indivisible whole. Descartes had no such thing.

    It's a little bit ironic that one can debate the philosophical relation between String Theory and Descartes' metaphysics, but err in the usage of tongue-in-cheek. :P

  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Podly wrote: »

    Well given your proven ignorance of Descartes, I'm not quite sure if you're one to talk.

    ? Because I didn't include God as an other?
    For Descartes, the physical world is the world of mathematics that is completely subject to mechanics, so I don't think I'm making some sort of preposterous claim.
    That is not the distinguishing feature of string theory. See: Isaac Newton.

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
1234568»
Sign In or Register to comment.