Stanisław Lem - Forum
English => Forum in English => Wątek zaczęty przez: hypersipher w Stycznia 06, 2005, 06:42:31 am
-
after reading a few posts in here a lot of you seem to think that philosophy is redundant, and never useful because philosophers always disagree despite having argued for thousands of years.
for that i simply say that one should not put down things they don't have adequate information about. even the computer you're typing on is based on truth-tables of binary logic derived in pure philosophy.
-
I seriously doubt if the 01 tables were invented by philosophers. What interest they are of for a philosopher? It is a work of logic; mathematical logic, to be more precise.
All you can do as a philosopher is argue about it.
-
Looks like this forum was infiltrated by gang of philosophers
-
Damn right! >:(
(No offence to hypersipher, we're just kiddin'; however the perimeter is indeed ,,saturated with philosophers'')....
-
I seriously doubt if the 01 tables were invented by philosophers. What interest they are of for a philosopher? It is a work of logic; mathematical logic, to be more precise.
All you can do as a philosopher is argue about it.
Yup, they were indeed. Its called "truth-tables" and the basic operations of the machine code in a computer science language such as "and, or, nand, nor, xor, xnor" etc are made by philosophers. If you have ever taken computer science/programming at university or know anyone who has, they usually require you to take a philosophy course as it teaches logic, sentential logic (e.g. in proper wording in programming, syntax consistency etc).
Lol you've come upon a very heated debate among philosophers, they are the ones who invented the "scientific method" ... such as aristotle; 1. hypothesis, 2. empirical results/tests, 3. conclusion (affirmation or rejection of hypothesis). The problem is that philosophers see science as just one way of looking at the universe, scientists see it as the only way.
Remember Einstein? His equation e=mc^2 was actually conceptualized by Schopenhauer, a philosopher who lived a 100 years before Einstein. Schopenhauer had stated that energy and matter are interchangeable. Einstein simply put it in an equation, another form of representation: mathematical. Or atoms, who thought of those? greek philosophers did. The Euclidean or Cartesian plane, the dimensions of space by Kant, all philosophers.
I hope you see the point
-
Hm, interesting info hypersipher. Let me ask you a question: Will be Theory of everything finally created by philosoph or by astrophysic? (or someone else?) What do you think?
-
''theory of everything'' is generally known as a mathematical concept, a theory combining relativity and quantum physics.
strictly speaking, it will be philosophical in nature. observations made by humans alter the universe at a fundamental level, so we interact with it, so to speak. a theory that accounts for this will have strong ontological background, in addition to physics.
-
And if another part of the "all" have another physic :-/
-
If memory serves me correctly, I believe it was Kant who was the first person of notoriety to draw the imaginary line between Science and Philosophy. We have attempted to maintain that illusion to this day.
There is no separation between either discipline. All is Philosophy.
Science originated from Greek Philosophy as one of its tools to analyze our Reality.
Philosophy itself originated in an attempt to understand the How and the Why of all Existence.
From my pov, that is what Philosophy is. Philosophy is the search for the answers to how and why we and everything else exists.
The Greeks called it "The Love of Wisdom."
They wisely chose Wisdom over Knowledge. Any mind can acquire knowledge by simply accumulating ‘data.' It is Wisdom that requires the mind to ascertain the pertinence of that knowledge.
Any discipline we use attaining the answers to "Life, the Universe, and Everything" are all tools of Philosophy, and thus are themselves Philosophy, whether it be the Philosophy of Science, the Philosophy of Religion, or Metaphysical Philosophy. They all fall under the umbrella of Philosophy and are used to distinguish between what is truth, and what is illusion.
C.C.Keiser
-
Huh, that's wise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not really a fan of distinguishing between science and philosophy. I also have warm feelings for the latter.
So If you feel like all is philosophy, you make a point.
BUT nowadays science tends to narrow specialization. We can't blame people who claim that their scientific work has ,,nothing to do with philosophy''. It's not always a matter of them being ignorant. It's just simpler for them.
-
It's fit. :)
Everything is Philosophy,
And everything you real know is science.
-
It's fit. :)
Everything is Philosophy,
And everything you real know is science.
Yep!
Philosophers hypothesize: "What if?"
When the theory is proven correct, it is no longer Philosophy, it becomes Science!
-
Philosophers hypothesize: "What if?"
When the theory is proven correct, it is no longer Philosophy, it becomes Science!
It´s true.
And it is the very first reason why philosophers should newer say "I know everything and Science is worthless."
(I don´t think it is opinion of anybody from here, it´s a real philosopher´s statement from another discussion forum !!)
-
Yep!
Philosophers hypothesize: "What if?"
When the theory is proven correct, it is no longer Philosophy, it becomes Science!
actually ... that is not correct. Many people confuse the science and philosophy comparison.
Think of philosophy as the heading for seeking truth, and science as a sub-heading. There are many philosophies which are proven correct and they are not called science. Alternatively, many scientific theories that have been previously proven correct fail to satisfy modern questions.
Hierarchially speaking, science is just a child to philosophy and it has absolutely nothing to do with proving or disproving philosophy and making it a science.
-
I don't like this tone in which you're speaking, all this ,,praise philosophy'' thing.
If everyone was a philosopher, and there was no scientists, You yourself would be a Very Wise Man sitting along with your pointed stick in a nice warm cave, creating the 100th theory about "what tommorow's weather would be like and what does it have to do with my free will".
So pay a little respect.
-
i pity you ;)
cuz i never said everyone is a philosopher.
-
It´s true.
And it is the very first reason why philosophers should newer say "I know everything and Science is worthless."
(I don´t think it is opinion of anybody from here, it´s a real philosopher´s statement from another discussion forum !!)
It must not be a philosopher who say this.
Everyone who mean, he is right, ignoring other arguments, is wrong. Not only Philosophers in so far
-
cuz i never said everyone is a philosopher.
I know you never said that. Who said you did? I just urged you to imagine a world full of philosophers, and them alone.
I thought It was clear. So your pity is well misplaced.
You better feel sorry for ignorants.
-
I always look for some kind of philosophy in anything I read. Especially in Sci-Fi.
-
Hello. I am a lifelong Lem reader from Sweden and this is my first post.
Can it be called "philosophy" when someone makes an assumption about
the evolution of the universe (multiverse) when the idea may never be
proved or disproved ?
I am thinking of Leo Smolin's idea that a universe might be created
(in another set of dimensions, all at right angles to ours)
every time a black hole is created, and if there are minor changes of the
laws of physics at every such event, those universes who have laws of physics
that allow more black holes to be produced will have more "offspring".
This would lead to a sitation where most universes have laws of physics
suitable for black hole production -which incidentally is quite suitable for the productions of stars and thus planetary systems and ultimately, life.
It would be a neat explanation for how delicately all physical constants are balanced to allow a stable cosmos (and allow life).
The idea seems to sit somewhere between cosmology and metaphysics since it would be hard to prove or disprove it.
Actually, it reminds me of Lem's short story Nova Cosmogonia, which also assumed change of the "constants" of physics over very long time scales. The difference is the changes of the story took place in our own universe, not in a "daughter" universe.
Yours Birger Johansson Arthur99Dent
-
Well, you have to admit that the fact of the story occuring in various universes instead of just one is just a complication. Lem's idea seems to deal with everything just fine.
The story is, however, a bit metaphysical, mostly because it involves the assumption that physical constants react to the presence of life in the universe, which is not that obvious to me.
I'm really confident that this is an example (to certain extent) that could be described using antromorphical rule (as mentioned by Hawking): we debate why we exist, proving that the world is what it is to make us exist. But we fail to see the fact that if universe was something different that it is, we wouldn't be able to question it, because we wouldn't... exist. So the world is what it is, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be there to think about it.
Say, that simplifies everything, doesn't it.
PS. Arthur Dent, how does it feel when a bunch of ugly Vogon scum destroyes your home?