Failure of Relativism

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12368
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Failure of Relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Noax wrote: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:55 am There are various meaning of 'idea'.
In the Kantian sense, 'idea' refer to philosophical ideas [in contrast to concepts] which are very specific.
The claim 'God exists as real' is a philosophical idea.
In the most real sense this resulting claim is illusory, i.e. God is a transcendental idea and a transcendental illusion [contrast empirical illusion].
In the Kantian sense, which I'm probably not getting correct, it would seem that the cup that I am holding is also a transcendental idea and a transcendental illusion, and thus in the same category as God. If I'm wrong about this, perhaps a description of what sort of thing (idea or otherwise) the cup is would help me parse what you are stating here. Even those that believe in the reality of a god typically put the god in a category distinct from the cup, and those that disbelieve in the reality of a god typically believe in the reality of the cup.
The cup you are holding is not a transcendental idea, thus not a transcendental illusion.

The cup you are holding is an objective reality of a physical object supported by an empirical concept [contrast idea].
Anything that have empirical reality or possible empirical reality is a philosophical concept.
For example a unicorn is empirically possible because all its qualities and characteristics are empirical [can be tested and verified empirically].
Even a unicorn that can speak like humans existing somewhere in the universe is an empirical possibility [cannot be rejected] but albeit having a very low possibility say 0.00001% to be empirically real.

But the idea of a God as absolute perfect is a philosophical idea because its quality is beyond empirical possibility and can only be presented via pseudo reason.
Note this thread of mine;

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Failure of Relativism

Post by Noax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:23 am The cup you are holding is not a transcendental idea, thus not a transcendental illusion.
I didn't think any idea was transcendental under the view. Maybe I don't know what is meant by 'transcendental idea'. Yes, it is a term used, perhaps as a distinction between a round circle and a square circle (distinguished by the latter being an impossibility in a sufficiently restrictive environment).
The cup you are holding is an objective reality of a physical object supported by an empirical concept [contrast idea].
I thought the objective cup (that which is common to multiple subjects, as opposed to existent independent of subjects) is something that is under the heading of transcendental idealism, meaning it is a still a mental construct, not part of reality which is confined to the empirical cup that supports it.
Excuse me if I'm getting it wrong, but the wording seems inconsistent with what's been asserted before.
Anything that have empirical reality or possible empirical reality is a philosophical concept.
For example a unicorn is empirically possible because all its qualities and characteristics are empirical [can be tested and verified empirically].
Even a unicorn that can speak like humans existing somewhere in the universe is an empirical possibility [cannot be rejected] but albeit having a very low possibility say 0.00001% to be empirically real.

But the idea of a God as absolute perfect is a philosophical idea because its quality is beyond empirical possibility and can only be presented via pseudo reason.
Note this thread of mine;

God is an Impossibility
It seems then that something is a 'philosophical concept' if it is, in someone's opinion, a thing that has some nonzero possibility of empirical interaction, emphasis on 'opinion'. I say this because the people who believe in God very much claim empirical interaction, or anticipated empirical interaction with the deity at a far higher probability than the unlikely empirical encounter with the unicorn.
If it is not a philosophical concept (bottle), then it is a transcendental idea (Klein bottle). Or did I get it wrong again?

I didn't look at your thread yet, but perhaps it is an attempt at a proof of the impossibility of God, which I'm sure was found invalid for some reason by those that hold such a belief, identical to your reaction to those that prove that your position is impossible.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12368
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Failure of Relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Noax wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:23 am The cup you are holding is not a transcendental idea, thus not a transcendental illusion.
I didn't think any idea was transcendental under the view. Maybe I don't know what is meant by 'transcendental idea'. Yes, it is a term used, perhaps as a distinction between a round circle and a square circle (distinguished by the latter being an impossibility in a sufficiently restrictive environment).
The cup you are holding is an objective reality of a physical object supported by an empirical concept [contrast idea].
I thought the objective cup (that which is common to multiple subjects, as opposed to existent independent of subjects) is something that is under the heading of transcendental idealism, meaning it is a still a mental construct, not part of reality which is confined to the empirical cup that supports it.
Excuse me if I'm getting it wrong, but the wording seems inconsistent with what's been asserted before.
Anything that have empirical reality or possible empirical reality is a philosophical concept.
For example a unicorn is empirically possible because all its qualities and characteristics are empirical [can be tested and verified empirically].
Even a unicorn that can speak like humans existing somewhere in the universe is an empirical possibility [cannot be rejected] but albeit having a very low possibility say 0.00001% to be empirically real.

But the idea of a God as absolute perfect is a philosophical idea because its quality is beyond empirical possibility and can only be presented via pseudo reason.
Note this thread of mine;

God is an Impossibility
It seems then that something is a 'philosophical concept' if it is, in someone's opinion, a thing that has some nonzero possibility of empirical interaction, emphasis on 'opinion'. I say this because the people who believe in God very much claim empirical interaction, or anticipated empirical interaction with the deity at a far higher probability than the unlikely empirical encounter with the unicorn.
If it is not a philosophical concept (bottle), then it is a transcendental idea (Klein bottle). Or did I get it wrong again?

I didn't look at your thread yet, but perhaps it is an attempt at a proof of the impossibility of God, which I'm sure was found invalid for some reason by those that hold such a belief, identical to your reaction to those that prove that your position is impossible.
You have lots of knowledge gaps re philosophical elements.

As for philosophical ideas, note the use of the term 'idea' by Plato, Kant & the likes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] is Plato's argument that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality.
Both concepts and ideas are mental representation of things.
Kant has deliberately differentiated concepts as empirical laden while idea do not have any empirical elements but merely pure thoughts and are illusory in contrast to possible realness.

Note there is no absolute meaning to any word other than reasonable consensus, e.g. it was commonly accepted 'gay = joy' in the past, but now it is 'gay = homosexual[ity].'
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Failure of Relativism

Post by Noax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:51 am Note there is no absolute meaning to any word other than reasonable consensus, e.g. it was commonly accepted 'gay = joy' in the past, but now it is 'gay = homosexual[ity].'
...
You have lots of knowledge gaps re philosophical elements.
They are Kant elements, not general philosophical ones, so I need to request more clarification in the usage of terms with which we would otherwise not have that reasonable consensus.
Both concepts and ideas are mental representation of things.
Kant has deliberately differentiated concepts as empirical laden while idea do not have any empirical elements but merely pure thoughts and are illusory in contrast to possible realness.
OK, but it seems like in one sense, both unicorns and god are empirical laden (Neither are ideas of my own making, but rather external concepts conveyed to me via empirical means), and also pure thought in another sense (they are both mentally constructed models that enable me to relate with others over the common concept). The cup falls under this category in the same way.

It seems that I cannot find anything that everybody would agree on as being a pure idea (mental construct), or a concept (same thing based on empirically gained information), or the actual mentally-independent thing about which we cannot think without one of the other modes.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Failure of Relativism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

What is relativism Veritas?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12368
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Failure of Relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Noax wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:51 am Note there is no absolute meaning to any word other than reasonable consensus, e.g. it was commonly accepted 'gay = joy' in the past, but now it is 'gay = homosexual[ity].'
...
You have lots of knowledge gaps re philosophical elements.
They are Kant elements, not general philosophical ones, so I need to request more clarification in the usage of terms with which we would otherwise not have that reasonable consensus.
Both concepts and ideas are mental representation of things.
Kant has deliberately differentiated concepts as empirical laden while idea do not have any empirical elements but merely pure thoughts and are illusory in contrast to possible realness.
OK, but it seems like in one sense, both unicorns and god are empirical laden (Neither are ideas of my own making, but rather external concepts conveyed to me via empirical means), and also pure thought in another sense (they are both mentally constructed models that enable me to relate with others over the common concept). The cup falls under this category in the same way.

It seems that I cannot find anything that everybody would agree on as being a pure idea (mental construct), or a concept (same thing based on empirically gained information), or the actual mentally-independent thing about which we cannot think without one of the other modes.
Some Gods as claimed can be empirical, e.g. the anthropomorphic God, e.g. that bearded man in the sky.
There are hundreds of gods that are attributed with empirical elements.
In this case, we await empirical evidences to prove the existence of such gods.

However I have argued in 'God is an Impossibility' that the default God has to be absolutely perfect which is an idea without any empirical elements.

It is a matter of consensus.
Those who are Kantian, those who agree with Plato would understand the points re idea as lack of empirical elements.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Failure of Relativism

Post by -1- »

Noax wrote: Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:42 pm
-1- wrote: Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:01 am Remarkable. An unknown radius of orbiting distance and unknown spin rate are inferior to the present.
I said different, not inferior. Our environment would be inferior to whatever evolved in that different environment.
You are making an invalid inference, by saying that the UNKNOWN would have prevented the evolution and life itself to develop on Earth.
No, I said the different environment (which is unknown) would have evolved different things, had life somehow started anyway. The prevention was because the super-low probability event would have to also happen in this different scenario. Most likely it wouldn't, just like it wouldn't in the scenario with the moon, but anything at all different. That's all under the micro-differences section, not the macro section you quoted.

I have not found an article that renders a guess as to the orientation of Theia event that made the moon. Without that knowledge, the length of Earth day and year before that event is unknown. They have suggestions for offset, speed and mass, but not orientation, which leaves no evidence. Another difference: Theia undoubtedly brought different chemicals to Earth. Without it, the chemical makeup would have been different, and thus any life that might have started would probably be poisoned in our environment just as the moles would be poisoned in that moonless environment.
I say that is possible, but it is also possible that the UNKNOWN conditions would have been equally favourable, which is also equally possible, as well as the conditions being hugely more favourable.
Fair chance that the no-moon Earth would have no water. Yes, it might be more favorable, but even our Earth is not at all favorable. Life is already a really low probability thing, and we just happened to hit it here, and not other trillions of places that are just as favorable.

We actually don't know how likely life is given ideal conditions. Yes, the event is far less likely than one in a trillion, but we got a lot more than a trillion attempts at it.
Since we deal with an UNKNOWN, you can't categorically declare its qualities for certain.
Parts of it are definitely different, such as the day length. A constant day length is different than a significantly lengthening one. But yes, the year length might possibly have been unchanged, although in that case there would have been some severe seasonal changes: Super hot and cold summers and winters due to a highly elliptical orbit. So again, unknown, but definitely very different. The only way to avoid these big seasonal changes is to have a big change to the length of the year.
Okay, I get you.
Atla
Posts: 6685
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Failure of Relativism

Post by Atla »

-1- wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:11 am "The relational view denies objective existence." This is easy to explain.

To a blind mole (a mammal living mainly under the atmosphere in the dirt) the moon does not exist. The moon does not affect the mole, and the mole has no knowledge of the moon. Humans are affected by the moon (they can see in moonlight, for instance, or they can see the moon when they look up on a clear sky), and therefore to them the moon exist.

To you, Atla, what we sense exists. But they exist to us humans inasmuch as they affect us. However, there are things in reality (hic) that we can't sense, because they don't affect us, much like a mole has no knowledge of the moon. A mole knows how an earthworm tastes, since it eats it; but to a hummingbird the taste of earthworms does not exist. Etc.

So in effect, the relational view can't be divorced from experience; and experience is limited; therefore the relational view can't be objective. There are things there in objective reality that are not in relation to the observer, and the observer will never learn that part of reality, or even have any concept that that part of reality exists. Hence, the observer's sense of reality can't ever be objective.
Yes, which is why this type of relational view is utter childish nonsense and has been thoroughly refuted. It makes no sense to me at all.

- experience isn't limited, that's just a popular myth
- there is no such thing as exist/doesn't exist in this sense, this idea is "not even wrong"
- giving special functions to the imagery etc. in the head, or special functions to the sense organs, makes no sense at all
- and now we know that outside things "exist" and "affect us" even if we have no imagery or whatever of them, except when we hallucinate
- the relational view has to "objectively exist" in the first place, to be able to claim that everything is relational, but that's another, more fundamental meaning of "objective" here I guess
- it is human cognition, human understanding that's relational, people should stop projecting this onto reality and then get lost in it

Newtonian world view is not an anachronistic atavism. It is very much with us and very valid to this day. QM has a different set of rules, because it is a different Movement Type. Biological movement is again different from Newtonian movement. A lot of movement types still have "X affects Y" type of relationships. To deny that on basis of QM not having it, is to deny the understanding of the difference between Movement Types.

Movement Types are a relatively new term in the natural sciences, but it covers very useful conceptual differences. While all physical objects must and do follow their own movement type's laws, or rules, they also have to comply with the movement types "below" them, but not with the types "above" them. This hierarchy is obvious when you think of how a change in DNA structure changes appearance, abilities and other characteristics. The characteristics have to comply with the DNA changes, but the DNA changes are not hinging upon the characteristics.
Yeah didn't you pretty much explain the refution here yourself? All "biological movement types" and the "Newtonian movement type" or any other "movement type" or whatever, have to comply with QM. Since QM is "below" everything.
Fundamentally there are no interactions, but it is useful to model stuff like there were interactions.
Last edited by Atla on Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6685
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Failure of Relativism

Post by Atla »

Noax wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:52 pmWhere does QM say there are only these two things? QM would say Y measures system X, or X exhibits decoherence in relation to Y. That's still cause and effect, in QM terms. Measurement is interaction.
Non-separability has automatically refuted the idea of "interaction" long ago. We would need to have actually separate things first, in order to have them "interact". And even then, this "interaction" itself would imply that "something extra is going on between those two separate objects", so you see, it's actually, a two-leveled magical thinking from the Newtonian worldview. Back then people literally thought that there are separate objects, and most people still literally think this today. It's a great, fantastic delusion. I guess you also can't have your type of relational view without it.

But "interaction" is just an outdated, magical metaphor that's extremely useful, effective to use in our models, calculations etc.

Likewise, "measurement" and "systems" are just magic metaphors you throw around without understanding them. There are no separate systems, we just arbitrarily decide that this part of the universe (or whatever) is a system, and that part is another system.

A can't "measure" B when A and B are non-separable. And of course, again, no one knows at all what measurement actually means in physics, but again I don't want to go there.
'Relation' is a mathematical concept.
I don't know, I can think of relation in at least 10 different meanings. The type of ontologically real relation you seem to be arguing for in this topic, doesn't exist at all in my opinion.
'Exist' is a metaphysical concept which goes unmentioned in QM science, but which I take literally as 'to stand out', since 'being' or 'is real' seems to require further clarification.
You mean in the Copenhagen-type interpretation QM science. And as I said, I think that this type of "exist"/"doesn't exist"/"stand out" makes no sense at all, it's not even wrong. (And the type of relational exist/doesn't exist you seem to be arguing for and the type of QM exist/doesn't exist you mentioned here are actually two or maybe 3-4 different things, I'm saying neither makes sense.)
Post Reply