Autor Wątek: the need for philosophy  (Przeczytany 12418 razy)

hypersipher

  • Gość
Re: the need for philosophy
« Odpowiedź #15 dnia: Styczeń 17, 2005, 02:24:57 am »
i pity you  ;)

cuz i never said everyone is a philosopher.

SoGo

  • Gość
Re: the need for philosophy
« Odpowiedź #16 dnia: Styczeń 20, 2005, 07:58:20 pm »
Cytuj
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

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: the need for philosophy
« Odpowiedź #17 dnia: Styczeń 21, 2005, 02:16:24 am »
Cytuj
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.


daffodil2006

  • Gość
Re: the need for philosophy
« Odpowiedź #18 dnia: Marzec 28, 2006, 08:40:22 pm »
I always look for some kind of philosophy in anything I read. Especially in Sci-Fi.

Arthur99Dent

  • Gość
Re: the need for philosophy
« Odpowiedź #19 dnia: Styczeń 17, 2007, 04:30:50 pm »
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

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: the need for philosophy
« Odpowiedź #20 dnia: Styczeń 18, 2007, 11:48:05 am »
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?