| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
 |
|
I decided to take this a step further. Stop me if I'm just being silly. But I just read through some of Hawkings statements about black holes. It seems generally accepted that black holes are capable of:
Reaching nearly infinite density at their core (a point of singularity)
Having extremely high gravity
Pulling in nearly everything
Evaporating, emitting "hawking radiation"
So if a black hole can pull in all things, and still evaporate into a type of radiation that is very small, it seems to me we already have an example of something becoming nothing. Though my modification to this would be that this black hole core, like the beginning of the universe, is not really an infinitely small singularity. But, is actually a point of nothing. Perhaps black holes are when things and anti-things are becoming nothing.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Are the laws of mathematics merely an invention of humans or do these laws express aspects of reality perceptible to rational humans despite being invisible to sea slugs? |
The language of mathematics is merely an invention of humans, but I suggest the laws are aspects of reality perceptible to - not just humans, but other more intelligent forms of life (except possibly sea slugs).
Our dog can certainly count to three, at least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
We have a general rule against philosophy in Applied Epistemology but I thought this might be a good place to stick up some thoughts I've had considering the meaning of life---from an AE perspective.
What is the one thing we know about the meaning of life?
The one thing we know about the meaning of life is that we do not know its meaning.
Aha! Then this must be the thing most essential to life having meaning!
Assuming life has meaning, the single knowable aspect of life's meaning is that its meaning depends on its meaning being obscured.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I don't normally commend ideas I have not thought up myself so I can only assume this is one that I have forgotten.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: |
Assuming life has meaning, the single knowable aspect of life's meaning is that its meaning depends on its meaning being obscured. |
Assuming life has no meaning your argument may still apply, i.e. the single knowable aspect of its lack of meaning depends on its lack of meaning being obscured.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think he's saying that. It seems analogous to the pursuit of happiness. You can only achieve it indirectly by pursuing something else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | One plus one equals two.
Is this statement subjective?
Truly now. |
How 'bout this?
One equals one.
Is that statement subjective?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I see what you mean. We believe something equals itself but only because that notion is in our heads. We may live in a far more complex universe than that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Pete Jones wrote: | | Ishmael wrote: | One plus one equals two.
Is this statement subjective?
Truly now. |
How 'bout this?
One equals one.
Is that statement subjective? |
It really just depends on what you are counting, and how you are counting it. You dont really want to exchange your house for one down the road without thinking about it. In fact you might not want to exchange it for two houses. The important thing is your houses exchange value, and because you will at least require 2 or more folks to exchange, the exchange value (annoyingly) is not set just by you, and you will need to negotiate. In short you need both a simple abstract counting system, as well a more complicated fluid counting system, for even the simplest exchange tasks to get by. Worrying about whether this is objective or subjective does not actually help you carry this out. Just be grateful you have got a variety of systems and crack on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You walk into the room with your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked and you say, "Who is that man?"
You try so hard but you don't understand
Just what you will say when you get home
Because something is happening here but you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't, I go with what's important for me, and keep on repeating the same points.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | Because something is happening here but you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones? |
Wile, are you sure I'm not the Thick Man (also a Mr. Jones) that isn't getting it? I'm not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
An excellent start.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Yes, I see what you mean. We believe something equals itself but only because that notion is in our heads. We may live in a far more complex universe than that. |
Alright, I've debated debating this, because it's teetering on verboten metaphysics/philosophy (but I think it's really just logic), so here goes....
If one = one is only in our heads, then that would mean that consistency itself (I e., the principle of non-contradiction) exists only in our heads. Non-contradiction would just be a subjective illusion.
But if the universe truly allows contradiction (i.e., one does not have to equal one), then what's the point of doing any science (or applied epistemology)? We depend on the universe being regular when trying to come up with new theories or laws of the universe. In this sense, uniformitarianism has to be assumed at some deep level, or the "laws" of the universe/physics/etc would be changeable.
Non-contradiction is either an objective truth, or none of this enterprise makes any sense.
To say "There is no objective truth" is a self-contradictory statement, therefore there must be objective truth---that is, unless we want to allow a principle of contradiction into the Universe (making science impossible).
Where is Mr Jones trying so hard but not understanding? I'm genuinely listening.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Yes, I see what you mean. We believe something equals itself but only because that notion is in our heads. We may live in a far more complex universe than that.
Alright, I've debated debating this, because it's teetering on verboten metaphysics/ philosophy (but I think it's really just logic), so here goes.... |
There is a reason we ban metaphysics--it never gets anywhere. But we love logic--that always gets somewhere. Let's see which applies...
| If one = one is only in our heads, then that would mean that consistency itself (I e., the principle of non-contradiction) exists only in our heads. Non-contradiction would just be a subjective illusion. |
That's logical.
| But if the universe truly allows contradiction (i.e., one does not have to equal one), then what's the point of doing any science (or applied epistemology)? |
That's not logical but it's not illogical either... careful.
| We depend on the universe being regular when trying to come up with new theories or laws of the universe. In this sense, uniformitarianism has to be assumed at some deep level, or the "laws" of the universe/physics/etc would be changeable. |
You are yourself adopting uniformitarianism. Why can't our bit of the universe be law-abiding, the rest not. Or some aspects of the universe are, some not. Or it's regular enough to frame laws but not regular in toto. Or... or... or...
| Non-contradiction is either an objective truth, or none of this enterprise makes any sense. |
See above.
| To say "There is no objective truth" is a self-contradictory statement |
You got that right. I often point this out to people who say it, usually because they can't fault some theory I've just come up with.
| therefore there must be objective truth |
At the level me and the dude I'm arguing with, yes.
| ---that is, unless we want to allow a principle of contradiction into the Universe (making science impossible). |
That is straight metaphysics. Or a truism.
| Where is Mr Jones trying so hard but not understanding? I'm genuinely listening. |
The use of the word 'genuinely' is a tell. (P.S. It's a Bob Dylan song, so nothing personal.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
