Unsolved Phillosophical Questions, Take One!

[Magus]

Originally Posted by Professor Smarmiarty

Ah but using the Zizekian analysis of God's existence in the negative parallex of non-syncretic points outside of the real and imaginary orders post the Incarnation he is yoked to our own freedom rather than the other way around and thus in theory he can do us in for genocide when the rapture comes.

Ah, indeed. Reminds me of the oldest philosophical question--which came first, Smarty:

The chicken? Or the egg?

[Sithdarth]

Noether's theorum takes down Idealism as well as Rutherford's gold foil experiments take down an atomistic view of matter.

1) In no way was I attempting to take down Idealism. The one and only point I was making is that you can deduce from the behavior of observable quantities the fact that induction holds for those observable quantities provided they behave in a certain way in relation to other observable quantities. To but it more simply the that which is observable can be used to deductively prove an inductive statement. Actually this gets me thinking that all (or a great many inductive statements) might actually be deductive statements we've just not discovered how to properly frame them.

2) Any scientist, without a massive ego, should be well aware that everything they do is at best a model of realty (whatever realty is or is not) and certainly nothing more than a mathematical idealization. Noether's theorem applying as it does to mathematical idealizations of physical processes is much more general than one at might first think. Certainly it has scope beyond Noether's first statement of it in that any system with continuous symmetries will have conservation laws associated with those symmetries. Of course it does take a little more than just Noether's theorem. One does also have to know that in any system of observable quantities, and the rules governing them, that is amenable to life conservation of energy must hold. Rather if conservation of energy does not hold the system would not be amenable to life. Really I shouldn't say life I should say reason. Any system in which conservation laws did not hold would not be amenable to reason and as such reason and thinking entities could not exist.

To reiterate this is all perfectly consistent with Idealism. I'm not attaching any objective reality to anything. I'm simply commenting on the restrictions imposed on any system that produces and supports thinking entities in general.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

To reiterate this is all perfectly consistent with Idealism. I'm not attaching any objective reality to anything. I'm simply commenting on the restrictions imposed on any system that produces and supports thinking entities in general.

I was commenting on your dismissal of philosophy based upon arguments in this thread which were bad philosophy and have nothing in common with actual proper philosophy.
You were using these posts to dismiss philosophy, so I used old aged science to dismiss science. You directly attacked the idealistic positions (and philosophy in general) held by the posters in this thread by going "Lol philosophers are so ignorant" when actual philosophers whose work necessarily crosses with scientific endeavour (an actually suprisingly small amount of them as most of the traditions of philosophy comparmentalise the empirical/rational planes) do read the latest scientific research.

Like maybe I completely misread you but this:

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

The problem with philosophers is they generally discuss things as if physics never advanced beyond the late dark ages.

seems pretty blatant and commiting the exact same error that you accuse them of committing. And has nothing to do with your clarificatory post.

[Sithdarth]

when actual philosophers whose work necessarily crosses with scientific endeavour (an actually suprisingly small amount of them as most of the traditions of philosophy comparmentalise the empirical/rational planes) do read the latest scientific research.

This is going to seem a little rude but without the relevant degrees (which some might have but I highly doubt they spent the money on two degrees) there is essentially no chance of any proper understanding. Although to be fair even with the proper degrees (and even for the people that come up with the theories) there is surprisingly little chance of proper understanding. For example, I know a lot of things but I don't feel as if I understand much of it at least not enough to determine all of the implications.

seems pretty blatant and commiting the exact same error that you accuse them of committing. And has nothing to do with your clarificatory post.

That statement was at least 80% facetious. I thought the irony was clear but I'm notoriously bad at conveying humor and I also don't do it often so I could see how someone would take everything I said as literal.

The problem with the internet no one on it understands humor.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's the egg.
A tree falling in the forest also makes a sound.

[Magus]

If it's bad, why does it feel so good? Is it only bad sometimes? Is it not actually bad but we've only been told it's bad? Is it actually good? Do good things sometimes feel bad? Are they only good sometimes? Are they actually bad?

[Aerozord]

ultimately I have this personal philosophy when it comes to science. We have a grasp and understanding of the universe, we can initiate and guide some of its simpler processes and in time complex processes. However there is a degree of arrogance to think that with mere sensory data, single species perspective, and faulty memory storage that we could possibly truly understand the workings for reality itself.

Heck there are phenomenon that merely observing them prevents them from occurring normally.