You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Wayfarer

Comments

Because the ability to make distinctions is fundamental to being able to argue a case. You've been arguing this up hill and down dale for days already...
November 17, 2016 at 12:16
According to what I've read, the term 'many worlds' was introduced by Bryce DeWitt when he began to champion Everett's ideas some years later. And you...
November 17, 2016 at 12:13
Right! So 'many worlds' is ok, but 'parallel universes' is not? Is there a difference?
November 17, 2016 at 11:54
Thanks! Now I see what you're referring to, and I think you make many valid points. But, consider the context. This was an article that Karen Armstron...
November 17, 2016 at 11:31
Well, it's pretty useless posting 'why should I be happy' on an internet forum. It's completely up to you. That's all there is to it.
November 17, 2016 at 06:35
beat me to it.. X-)
November 17, 2016 at 05:51
Knowledge would be results others could reproduce and confirm. That's what monasteries are for.
November 17, 2016 at 05:23
I went to a book launch a few weeks back, by an outstanding character called Deng Adut, a Somali refugee who had made his way to Australia, then gradu...
November 17, 2016 at 05:21
Yes, there are parallel universes and we can find out about them. Well, glad we got to the bottom of that, although it directly contradicts and answer...
November 17, 2016 at 05:12
Right, they're both books. So how do you justify "there's a wold of difference"? You could just as well say they have different titles, or different c...
November 17, 2016 at 03:45
In non-technical terminology, what does a 'macroscopically definite state' consist of? Here is an excerpt from the Phillip Ball essay: So, for the ump...
November 17, 2016 at 03:36
the question still stands - you said 'under Everett you accept multiplicity' - multiplicity of what?
November 17, 2016 at 03:08
multiplicity of what?
November 17, 2016 at 02:02
Right, but by that he doesn't mean that it's referring to anything real. He's a positivist, i.e., doesn't matter whether there really are many worlds....
November 17, 2016 at 01:45
Right - decoherence, I get that. I think I'm more or less in agreement with your post, although I don't have the background to understand all of it. A...
November 17, 2016 at 01:23
Andrew, 'Worlds' doesn't begin with 'M', does it. The question was, what does "M" stand for? And obviously the answer is 'many' - as in 'many worlds'....
November 17, 2016 at 01:20
Tell me this, then - what does the "M" stand for in "MW"? says you.
November 17, 2016 at 01:08
All I'm saying is that mathematics is only perceptible to an intelligence capable of understanding numbers. Like, you can't teach mathematics to your ...
November 16, 2016 at 23:38
except that it is only intelligible to a mind, so, not mind-independent, but opinion-independent.
November 16, 2016 at 23:26
There's a world of difference. You're obfuscating a really basic difference in moral philosophy in a way that will inevitably entail relativism. It's ...
November 16, 2016 at 23:18
please elaborate
November 16, 2016 at 23:10
From the Aeon article that Orzel says is terrible: All the MWI advocates seem to be ignoring this point.
November 16, 2016 at 22:30
I agree in part, but not with the italicized passage. Again I think you're blurring the distinction between facts and values, and I think it is a legi...
November 16, 2016 at 22:12
What I am calling into question is the principle of 'mind-independence' or 'scientific realism'. I notice from the Orzel blog, 'The fundamental proble...
November 16, 2016 at 20:18
only for 'weak' mwi; for the strong version there really are countless separate or parallel universes. And that is metaphysics. Also metaphysics. Assu...
November 16, 2016 at 10:51
except for it's not 'a theory', it is a metaphysic.
November 16, 2016 at 10:04
Adjoining countries are Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. But aside from Turkey, I don't think any are truly democratic (and Turkey is looking shaky);...
November 16, 2016 at 08:29
Nowadays, 'belief' is shorthand for 'believing an empirical proposition for which there is no evidence'. Whereas, as Armstrong says, what it originall...
November 16, 2016 at 08:25
https://youtu.be/tFMo3UJ4B4g
November 16, 2016 at 03:55
I'm reading Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality, Manjit Kumar, on this topic. Kumar quotes Bohr as saying: (p262...
November 16, 2016 at 02:46
However, it is not possible to observe neural activity as though from a third-person perspective. You can't reach that perspective on it. You might th...
November 16, 2016 at 02:11
If you can't see how fatuous that comparison is, then really we have nothing to discuss.
November 16, 2016 at 00:58
Um, I think I'm nearer to an 'objective idealist' (and Pierce comes up under that categorisation.) But I am a pragmatist about science, in that I beli...
November 16, 2016 at 00:52
Today's NYTimes profile of Breitbart News: Drain the swamp? How about, stock it with crocodiles, jackals, weasels, and flesh-eating bacteria?
November 16, 2016 at 00:42
Knowing other philosophers who say similar things, would help to understand what you mean. So far, I'm finding that very challenging. And I'm accused ...
November 16, 2016 at 00:32
I'm going with (3).
November 16, 2016 at 00:29
Cases of the kind you cite are, for me, cases of cause and effect operating in the empirical world. I haven't denied. or even questioned, those. There...
November 15, 2016 at 23:33
It's not hard to figure out. It's a meaningless term. 'Headache' is not a meaningless term - when you say you have a headache, I know what you mean. W...
November 15, 2016 at 22:53
I know to what it refers to, but I am arguing that 'brain state' is a meaningless term. You said in another thread: This is a typical statement of mat...
November 15, 2016 at 22:23
So, if brain states are not the subject of the neuro-sciences, then what are you referring to when you use the term 'brain states'?
November 15, 2016 at 22:06
What I'm saying is that those terms are meaningless, it's 'neuro-babble' which appears to connote something scientific but in reality says nothing. I ...
November 15, 2016 at 22:01
Thanks for your very clear analysis, and glad to make your acquaintance. My objections to philosophical materialism are many and various, so I will tr...
November 15, 2016 at 21:01
I think 'we don't know' is the superior answer. Physics is getting hopelessly entangled in pseudo-metaphysics, Everett's being an egregious example. A...
November 15, 2016 at 20:33
This seems the exact opposite of what you said yesterday:
November 15, 2016 at 10:02
Thanks - that's pretty close to what I thought, but I don't understand your first point, 'an observation entangles the observer with objects on a part...
November 15, 2016 at 08:20
Like 'instrumentalism' in physics? IN any case, to answer your question in the OP, I think factor analysis does try and identify 'real causes' on the ...
November 15, 2016 at 07:45
The reason it works is because there are real possibilities; there are things that really might happen, and other things that never will. The philosop...
November 15, 2016 at 07:21
So much for 'draining the swamp'. Trump's just re-stocking it!
November 15, 2016 at 06:45
All I'm asking is, whether another name for what you have called 'unobservables' is 'possibilities'. Isn't that what factor analysis is trying to dete...
November 15, 2016 at 06:31