"Harry" wrote in message ...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
SNIP
An example of
what I would consider good philosophical style is -
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...riefs/Real.htm.

Nice one!

Oh really? I thought it idiotic. Have you ever heard of the effect
known as phantom-limb syndrome?

Patrick

(Patrick Reany) wrote in message om...

You seem to want to develop metaphysical beliefs about the world
which, although you can never prove them using the methods of science,
you want to treat them as absolute truths anyway. I simply deny you
that as being scientific. Hold your beliefs as natural philosophic,
rather than scientific, and I have no objection to that.


I understand your point, Patrick, and in some cases it's actually
essential to make the point.

In relativity the notion that time is not absolute but is defined by
the clock that the observer carries with him (though there are some
relations that can predict what time interval inertial observers will
measure), is a key philosophical jump. If those clocks and the
transforms serve, there is NO NEED to try to find an underlying
mechanism for time dilation. No need for inner cogs and wheels.

Similarly, in quantum mechanics, that there is no "hidden variable"
that is strictly deterministic and which scatters measurements around
randomly, and moreover there is NO NEED to find an underlying
mechanism for the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics.

Thus, the adoption of the axiomatic has become a key ingredient in
physics. It probably always has, it just used to rely more on "common
sense" which is, as it turns out, not the right thing to axiomize.

PD

"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message
om...

You seem to want to develop metaphysical beliefs about the world
which, although you can never prove them using the methods of science,
you want to treat them as absolute truths anyway. I simply deny you
that as being scientific. Hold your beliefs as natural philosophic,
rather than scientific, and I have no objection to that.


I understand your point, Patrick, and in some cases it's actually
essential to make the point.

In relativity the notion that time is not absolute but is defined by
the clock that the observer carries with him (though there are some
relations that can predict what time interval inertial observers will
measure), is a key philosophical jump.

LOL!
Are you discussing science or Harry Potter?



If those clocks and the
transforms serve, there is NO NEED to try to find an underlying
mechanism for time dilation. No need for inner cogs and wheels.

Yeah, no need for magic is a key philosophical jump.


Similarly, in quantum mechanics, that there is no "hidden variable"
that is strictly deterministic and which scatters measurements around
randomly, and moreover there is NO NEED to find an underlying
mechanism for the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics.

Thus, the adoption of the axiomatic has become a key ingredient in
physics. It probably always has, it just used to rely more on "common
sense" which is, as it turns out, not the right thing to axiomize.

PD
Well, I'd agree that common sense is not the right thing to axiomize.
If we used common sense, a stick in water would really be bent because
we can see it is, and a star would really explode and settle back to normal
only to explode again, because we can see it does.
Androcles

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
SNIP
An example of
what I would consider good philosophical style is -
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...riefs/Real.htm.

Nice one!

Oh really? I thought it idiotic. Have you ever heard of the effect
known as phantom-limb syndrome?

Patrick

No I didn't!
Please enlighten me about that, and also about why you thought the above
(too much?) down-to-earth discussion idiotic.

Harald

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany wrote:

I didn't say there there is no reality or that reality can't be known.
But if you want to make claims about what you know about reality,
you'll need two things first: 1) a definition of reality, and 2) an
epistemology that justifies all your claims as to how you know what is
reality.


What will justify the justifications?

Bob Kolker

The point of providing one's justifications is not necessariy to
convince others to accept it, but rather is merely to reveal it for
analysis by others.

When Einstein, in his GR paper of 1916, revealed his rejection on
epistemological reasons the notion that invisible absolute space is
the ultimate cause of the visible distortion of rotating matter, and
thus revealing his acceptance of some principle like Mach's Principle,
he was merely revealing his epistemologcal prejudices which he had
freely accepted and which had turned into effective principles which
guided theory development. It was just one part of his overall formal
point of view, without which, as he he told us, one can't get anything
done at all.

Patrick

"Harry" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
SNIP
An example of
what I would consider good philosophical style is -
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...riefs/Real.htm.

Nice one!

Oh really? I thought it idiotic. Have you ever heard of the effect
known as phantom-limb syndrome?

Patrick

No I didn't!
Please enlighten me about that, and also about why you thought the above
(too much?) down-to-earth discussion idiotic.

Harald

Some people with severed limbs claim that they experience pain coming
from the missing limb. The implication is that the brain can do things
for reasons that have no conventional explanation accoring to our
naive view of reality.

It is claimed (though I don't know if it is true) that people can be
hypnotized to feel pain for imagined reasons or to not feel pain when
it would normally be experienced, such as during surgeries.

All of this indicates that the mind is not restricted to experiencing
preceived events according to our ant-like theories of "reality." I
may think that I ran into something and even experienced pain
seemingly as a result of the run-in, yet that is not absolute proof
that I ran into something. The human mind is NOT infallible.

I am NOT arguing for ontological idealism, since for one thing I don't
believe in it myself. But I am arguing against the silly arguments
given against it in the web reference.

Patrick