chaz wyman wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote:Compatibilism is the truth, as determinism and physics are bound. . .
SpheresOfBalance wrote:The laws of physics are indeed truths.
chaz wyman wrote:Until they are revised, then the new laws are truth and the old ones are not.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:OK but this assumes that none are not revisable, it is these of which I speak. One also has to consider that they my change due to any particular/set of constituents they are comprised of, that change. This then, as far as I see it, is an indicator that insufficient language was used to delineate the law in the first place, as surely a time marker should be stipulated, as it would seem the universe is in a state of constant flux.
chaz wyman wrote:Sorry no. You are making a mistake.
You say; "The laws of physics are indeed truths", yet those laws change all the time.
It is thought that that nature which underlies those laws is unchanging, according to the theory of uniformitarianism, to which I agree. But the laws have changed since men have studied nature, and will change again.
Thus from your own words; truth changes.
We obviously see things differently. I see that "laws" are those unchanging truths in nature, and only see mans feeble attempt at formulating language to approximate those laws as changing. The thing in and of itself is the law, not mans words.
But that means you cannot know any laws.
It can only make sense that the 'linguistic approximations' are that upon which we rely and are codified in texts.
Kant was right. We can never know the thing-in-itself.
I disagree. But you already know this, you and I have danced this tango before. Kant was wrong on this point. How could he say this and yet speak of time as if he knew, or anything else pertaining to the universe for that matter, a contradiction I think. I see that the problem is not, in the knowing of the thing-in-itself, but knowing when, if and how much one knows the thing-in-itself. One can know without knowing they know, and vice versa.
Sir Richard F Burton wrote:
'Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not;
He who knows not, and knows he knows not;
He who knows and knows not he knows;
He who knows and knows he knows.'
I would add that in all truth the largest percentage of mankind falls in the first two categories, and that the wise fall into the latter of those two. Categories three and four certainly do not pertain to all the knowledge any particular man would have, rather just bits and pieces. And I have a hard time believing that any man actually falls into the last category, because I don't necessarily believe that any man can receive confirmation from the universe, which I see as a requirement for him knowing he knows.
