But your spoken truths always rely on unspoken ambiguities. Are we talking about adult black swans or their fluffy white goslings? Are we talking abou...
It was your focus on the "rate" which was the confusing issue. If you had made a contextual claim - talked about the apparatus having some particular ...
Physicists don't think like crackpots. They've got better things to do than obsess over an interpretation with no observable consequences - and one no...
Again, the wave refers to the probability of observing a particle at some location. It applies to the individual event and does not describe some coll...
Your approach is confusing as you start off suggesting that rate ought to matter. So your mental picture seems to be that each event has to be "close ...
Coming from you, that's rich. So reality is both fully deterministic and fundamentally tychic in your book? An interesting twist on quantum crackpotte...
Does it actually feel the same? And is there a balance of the two that feels even better? You seem to be presuming your conclusions again. What you sa...
It is not some actual material wave hitting the screen. It is a description of predictable observables with a "wave-like" evolution in time. In the sa...
Is it that difficult? If evolutionary logic defines what is natural, then doing something contrary to that logic lacks a natural justification. You wo...
:-} It's the paths that "interfere". They either add or cancel to create the interference pattern. It's a thing even in the classical wave mechanics v...
Yep. And while Piaget's structuralism is a big step in the right direction, I in fact am in the semiotic or social constructionist wing of the debate ...
Well why was Newtonian determinism such a metaphysical surprise? Because it stands directly against the belief that we are creatures of capricious whi...
Each particle "interferes with itself" in the sense that it interacts with the apparatus in every way that it can. It takes every possible path, the c...
You will have to explain why this "helping ourselves" is some kind of problem. It might be if you believed that deduction is more fundamental than ind...
Agreed. We have to identify the invariances as the essential features of the landscape. They start as the surprises in need of an explanation. Which a...
So the question becomes whether we are still engaged in a generally natural game? Despite developing the new "mind-expanding" thing of conceptual thou...
I would say not quite. The Newtonian breakthrough involved a metaphysical presumption about invariant laws. And now the modern presumption is that all...
You are not making sense. How does inquiry even get started unless you are willing to hazard the concrete guess that you are then committed to checkin...
No controlling hand is needed. The dichotomy or symmetry breaking just goes freely to to its equilibrium balance. It finds its own eventual rest state...
What's wrong with a circular argument if it takes the form of the scientific method? The circle is that of abduction, deduction and inductive confirma...
So you are saying that the problem of induction doesn’t hinge on the metaphysical assumption that causality may not be invariant? Curious. What other ...
You don't need invariance. You just need a limit on variance. And probability theory models limits on variance. A better "hinge proposition" - as it i...
So the holographic principle - the one that current physics is talking about - is concerned about the fundamental dynamics of spacetime. It speaks to ...
What we need to remember about Popper's version of Peirce's triadic modelling relation is of course that Popper makes the leap from merely a psycholog...
Apparently reason don’t care about semantic truth. Only syntactical correctness matters. All you need to know is the bishop moves on the diagonal. The...
SO how strongly do you doubt an inductive conclusion? Do you doubt it absolutely? Or is that unreasonable? It’s a funny thing. Folk can really hate Ca...
But then any version exhibits a belief that the biology counts. Biological evolution suppressed it. Not culture and its impact on cognition. It's like...
That's a different issue. I was talking about the belief in mind-independent truth - the world as it would be experienced even when not being experien...
That's a good example. And one that I was going to mention as an argument in the other direction. It is theorised that the human shift towards the ext...
The social reasons for his relative obscurity are well documented. And many factors combined. It did not help that he was American in that era of Euro...
That is how you attack the Jamesian strawman version of pragmatism. The actual story here is that truth is the limit of rational inquiry. It is what w...
Heh. The glass that pragmatism knows to be 99.99 percent full is always going to be frustratingly empty for those who still ache for Platonic certaint...
Popper wasn't directly influenced by Peirce, but did recapitulate the same line of thought. They were especially close on propensities. And Peirce of ...
So compared to our closest non-linguistic relatives, like the chimps, bonobos and gorillas, which instinctive behaviours have we lost? Be as specific ...
But it is your contention that there is a decoupling rather than an integration. So frankly I have no idea what you are on about. Just as I don’t know...
Given that the individuation of a psychology is a blend of both influences from birth - as I said - then you can see why this is a silly question. The...
But I asked you for clarification about this "relevance" of yours. For me, there is a background metaphysics that explains the specific relevance. For...
So did I make a big thing of it, or have I just replied to your continuing questions about it? Fine. And yet you kept asking anyway. And I kept explai...
Comments